Re-Educating for Zero Waste

While actually achieving zero waste in the physical sense is impossible, as an ideal it is a worthy goal to shoot for. The degree to which we use (and reuse) the items we buy is the degree to which they hold value for us. Whenever we buy an item, but do not explore all options for extracting value from it, we waste some of the money and time spent acquiring it. Multiply that by the millions of people worldwide who are doing the same, and you have a significant problem with global economics.

Resources aren't scarce, we just waste them left and right. In fact, we have been educated to do just that. Any ongoing business model requires ongoing saleable products. The faster the market saturates, the sooner the business is out of business. So businesses have two options: continuously generate new and exciting products that people want or need, or use marketing to convince people that they want or need to re-purchase old products. The second is easier to accomplish, especially for a business that has enough money to launch a mass media marketing campaign.

To be successful in marketing required an increase in the volume of products to be sold, which on turn, required an increasing demand. However, numerous products were becoming mass-produced that were really not consumable—and so consumers were becoming satisfied. How many TVs does one family need? So mainstream marketing slowly evolved into a tool for re-educating the masses.

Media was used to create a culture where the newest and best was emotionally important to people, so they learned to disregard the rational idea of conserving waste ("I don't need a new one, yet.") and replace it with the irrational idea of status ("My stuff is my worth.")

All of this was fine as long as the economy was in a state of growth, but as soon as the problem with waste reached a critical mass and wages began to suffer, there simply was not enough money to continue on that path. Unfortunately, the consumer credit industry stepped in, allowing us to differ fate for more time and make the problem bigger.

The solution, of course, begins with a strategy to approach zero waste in our households, businesses, and communities. And I don't mean just recycling, but actually using every ounce of value from a product before it goes anywhere—even if it has to go to the dump—or using the waste to create something else of value. This goal presents many opportunities to enterprising individuals.

One of my favorite small businesses sells a product called "Turnadaisy." These lazy-susan style tabletops are made from repurposed power line spools, and are designed to be used in a number of applications, from greenhouse hydroponics to convenient serving trays. They keep trash out of the landfills, provide a useful product, and an income to their creators. I'd bet they could even pay the salaries of a few marketers as well!

Now that's what we need to found companies on.

[Republished from Jan 14, 2011]

A Big Comfortable Tree

Personal development media is about pushing your limits and expanding your capacity and abilities. By identifying weak points and blind spots, then learning to work with or around them, we maximize our potential for success in whatever area of life we choose to focus. Inherently, this process requires that you "get out of your comfort zone." In other words, it is impossible to grow if you seek comfort over growth.

However, when dealing with people outside oneself, it is very important to be likeable. Fundamental to likeability is being comfortable to be around. If you're uncomfortable with yourself, it shows. Worse, it has a tendency to make other people uncomfortable, too. When this happens too often, you destroy your ability to be likeable.

So the first question you should ask yourself about success (after "what is success to me?") is "how do I remain comfortable outside my comfort zone?" Fortunately, there is a difference between the internal comfort that makes you easy to like, and the external discomfort you have to endure in order to expand your capacity. The only challenge remains in learning to identify that difference.

Internal comfort comes from understanding yourself, then channelling your strengths. Learning which projects to tackle—and which to ignore—based upon your own personal passions and weaknesses is empowering. When you start to make headway with this process, you will naturally increase your self-confidence. When you increase your self-confidence, you become more comfortable with yourself—and more comfortable to be around.

Once you understand your unique State of FITness (or FITstate), you will be better able to manage the frustration created by pushing your external comfort zone. As I have illustrated before, a FITstate is the naturally defined balance of relevant elements, which are combined in harmony to enable the highest climb with the most stability. Like a healthy tree, the higher the reach, the broader its expanse can be—based upon the given nature of that particular tree. The broader the expanse of "branches" fed by strong "roots", the greater the possibilities for a fulfilling life.

Like a tree, our expanse of possibilities is stunted by an insufficient root system or poor soil, as well as by the available space in the canopy. However, unlike the tree, we can change our root situation, and in doing so, fairly negotiate for more canopy space and resources by which to fuel that new potential growth. This process is inherently painful because we naturally draw the boundaries of our comfort zones at the point where we decide the pain is "unbearable." Roots are not easy to replant, nor is it easy to push new branches into unexplored territory.

However, when something you passionately want requires actions that are outside of your comfort zone (your existing expanse in the canopy), the pain can become more bearable. This is because things you are passionate about carry their own reward in the journey. You are more willing to fail—a necessity for learning—along a path to what you feel is a worthy goal, than you are along a path to something you are lukewarm about.

Once you know what you're passionate about, you will know what to invest your time in. You never "spend" time on your passions, you "invest" time in your passions. If you are truly passionate about something, then even the failures are blessings, because you are interested enough in the project to find the lesson in the failure and try again. This perspective eliminates much of the frustration that comes from falling short of a goal on a path you're simply lukewarm about. When you avoid frustration, you remain comfortable with yourself. When you avoid external discomfort (pushing limits), you become frustrated and uncomfortable with yourself.

So how about it? Would you like to be a big, comfortable tree?

The Truth About TRUTH

When speaking about the concept of truth, it is important for an audience to understand what that word refers to. In my mind, there are two distinct concepts embedded in that word.

The first is somewhat adequately defined as "facts." The truth (lowercase "t") is a collection of general information about something real and quantifiable. Science seeks the "truth" about or universe through objective, empirical study. It collects and chronicles present and past instances of real events in support of a general theory of the parts' connection to each other.

The Truth (capital "T"), however, is not to be confused with his general theory, which is—after all—only a theory. The Truth is maddening to logicians and intellectuals because, by its nature, it can never be completely known or captured at any instance. It appears fluid because it has a broad application. In reality, it exists as unshakeably as the laws of physics.

Of course, religions claim exclusive ownership of Truth. Also, in many cases, nations or peoples claim this ownership. Even organizations (from legitimate to criminal) claim this ownership before their constituents. Indeed (and ironically), much blood has been and continues to be shed over the ownership of Truth. Yet Truth is bigger than religion, government, and the marketplace, the first informing the others. No man gets to decide what "Truth" is, only what "truth" is.

Throughout human civilization, those in power have sought to do a number of things using the Truth as a means to an end. Some seek to enlighten by attempting to expose the Truth, but the masses habitually remain focused only on what they can see. Others seek to control the masses by propagating a singular view of the Truth. No matter how monstrous or angelic the plan, the goal is nearly always to make the world a better place. The question is, better for whom?

There are two poles to the use of Truth as a catalyst for a better world. The first entails Truth being taught through a broad discussion, as with the Liberal Arts. People study the greatest ideas from all of human history in order to seek for themselves the best understanding of Truth. The other entails a scholar or "expert" building his own understanding (faulty or true) into a singular edifice for the masses.

The result is that only those willing to dive into the Liberal Arts ever acquire true perspective. Everyone else is encouraged to take the expert's word for it. However, the expert is not you, does not share your problems or passions, and ultimately cannot help you like you can when you have perspective. And so, people make do, and fail. Instead of making the difficult dive into the Arts, they latch onto a truth—that is, a prepackaged way of being—that most resembles their current lifestyle.

It's not that people don't believe in Truth, it's that they don't want to believe. Truth is obvious when it is simply laid out, but it may suggest the need for a change in lifestyle for many people. Since this can be painful, and since suffering is not in keeping with a better world, those with the means tend to deliver "solutions" to ease the suffering.

As with physical training, there are ways to work up to the heavy material. However, no fitness coach would be worth his salt if he helped you avoid "the burn"! And no FITness coach would be either if he let get by on half-baked ideas!

It Could Not Have Been Different

I saw a license plate today that read, "IF ONLY". It echoed some of the familiarly haunting thoughts that had been running through my head this morning. We all have things in our past that we wish had gone differently. Some things are painful failures, but others are joyous milestones that have lost their luster. Commitments we made in a time of naivete, can begin to feel like shackles as time wears on. We can become preoccupied with imagining how life would be now if these things were different.

But the truth is that life could not have been different. Everyone makes choices at a moment in time based upon the information they have at that time. Generally, the information is insufficient to make an truly informed decision. The fact that experience comes from making poorly informed decisions is one of life's many counterintuitive aspects. It is for this reason, that we could not have changed the past.

"If I knew then what I know now."

At any point in the past, we could not have acted differently without different information. However, different information is not inherently a change maker either. When a lifetime (however young the person) is spent building a library of experience, a brief introduction to life-changing information is bound to be insufficient to make an impact. Regardless of how truthful the information is, or how completely the recipient accepts it as truth, the momentum of conflicting past information will tend to overtake it.

Our brains are built to form habits. Our conscious minds are limited, and so we differ certain regularly accessed data stores and repeated actions to our subconscious mind. The subconscious acts as an autopilot, running our routines in the background so that we can be conscious of more important decisions. Unfortunately, the subconscious tends to be overzealous—or we tend to be lazy with our conscious minds. Either way, we form some habits of thought and action that are counterproductive, then we re-enforce them through repetition.

Consequently, it is more difficult to "teach an old dog new tricks" than it is to teach a younger one. That being said, when applied to humans, this adage judges "old" by how long it has been since the last time one's habits have been deeply examined. By identifying problem areas in our habitual minds, we can begin the process of re-educating ourselves to think, then act, differently. This takes time, and is a bit like turning a battleship.

All we can do about the past is to learn from it. By rooting out the causes behind our regrets, we can begin to change the course going forward. The more we learn from media sources about the human condition, the better equipped we are to self-examine and to change what we find. And, of course, you have to take responsibility for the problems that you caused. Running from your faults is the surest way to make more regrets.

No matter how much better it seems that life would be now without that "ball-and-chain" from your past, consider the truth of your ideal. Given your mindset, if things had gone differently, would you have made different decisions? Or would you have chased another woman if your wife had snubbed you? If you hadn't sworn at your boss that day, would you have sworn at him the next? You might wish you hadn't decided to have a child or hadn't had that decision made for you (by fate, et al). Just consider how many times you had missed committing yourself before your thoughts led to actions which led to the consequences (desirable or not).

Likely, it could not have been different. Even if you travelled back in time to warn yourself, the odds are that your habitual mind and the surrounding circumstances would have lead you to the same place. The only way to change your future results—to avoid the regrets and "if onlys"—is through continuous, applied self-examination enabled by a mentor and a varied diet of media sources. It may take time to turn the battleship, but the future CAN be different.

Mentors and Media

Relationships are more important than media, and more powerful. There is an overwhelming amount of children's media that teaches the virtues of sharing, respecting differences in people, and generally living a fit lifestyle. The Great Ideas and endless practicable information about them are out there. So why are there so many problems?

One way of looking at it says that people simply choose to avoid information that they are uncomfortable with. Through a series of harmless personal choices to watch this or that, read that or the other, or favor entertainment over art, we each form habits or "ruts." These habits of media consumption become habits of mind which narrow the individual's field of understanding.

As I wrote in a recent post, the more the Internet enables access to information, the more that most people settle into these ruts. By giving us not only access to media, but also detailed information about its content, information technology enables us to tailor our media diets to what we feel comfortable with. But education is about new and challenging information, and therefore naturally creates discomfort.

My question is, how do people come to feel uncomfortable about certain ideas in the first place? When we are children, we are learning machines. We are curious about everything. Perhaps it is because everything is unknown and therefore uncomfortable that we seek knowledge in our youth. Once we learn a certain amount, we become comfortable with the illusion that we know enough.

If so, then how does discomfort switch from a driving force to a limiting force? The answer lies in relationships. This process begins with an individual's relationship with his parents which is the standard for all future relationships. The stability and level of encouragement found in an individual's family is then impacted by the influence of other relationships outside the home.

The more the members of the family live lives of integrity and truth, the more encouraging and stable the relationship will be. The stronger the relationship is, the more the individual will seek truth instead of comfort, and the less he will be susceptible to peer pressure and fashionable ideas. Essentially, he will be free from the influence of a great deal of cultural rip tide because he will sacrifice short term comforts to the long term peace provided by stability.

In the absence of strong, principle-based relationships, people turn inward and rely upon themselves. Like ships tossed in a storm with no sight of land, these people necessarily fear to change position, preferring the devil they know to the one they don't. Media content that challenges the correctness of an individual's position demands a change in that position. This feels risky to a person who has no perspective outside himself, and so, this information is avoided.

For a free society to flourish, people of lesser life experience need strong mentor-like relationships. Media alone—even at its most truthful—can be easily twisted, avoided, misunderstood, or ignored at the preference of the individual. Without guidance, more media, and more information about media merely tends to make it easier for a person to live in a world of his own making. And if it's not the truth, that's a problem

Ignorance, Confusion, Enlightenment

[Reposted from ctif.blogspot.com]

A story is a process, whether we're talking about the story of our lives or the story of our characters' lives. We begin with a simplistic view. We are ignorant of anything outside our perspective. As we accumulate knowledge and experiences, our eyes are opened to the complexity of the world. Complexity leads to confusion because we don't yet possess the wisdom to understand the connections between the tangible elements of our story. As we gain wisdom, the complexity becomes simplified again and we become enlightened.

If you think about it, this arc applies to everything wherein learning is involved. Ignorance is not knowing. Not only do we not know the details of life, but we don't always know there are details to be known. As the saying goes, "You don't know what you don't know." Our perspective on life is determined by our personal experiences, what's called our "field of experience." The less we learn about the rest of the world, the more we rely upon the assumption that the rest of the world is like us. What would cause us to think otherwise?

As we associate with other people and learn about them, our perspective widens to encompass the new information. The faster we learn knowledge, the more confused we can become. Our brains begin to fill with what appears to be separate, if not random pieces of information. This process is difficult, even painful, because it expands our mental capacity. This is why many choose to remain ignorant. As they say, "Ignorance is bliss." But clearly, ignorance only limits our freedom. Without a adequate view of the elements of our story (again, be it life or fiction) we cannot hope to take command of our circumstances.

Like the water lily, these "pads" of information seem separate, but are actually connected. The process of deciphering the randomness of life gives us wisdom. As we begin to understand connections between separate areas of life, we find that our story once again becomes simplified. However, this time our perspective is one of truth and unity rather than self-centered autonomy. We understand that freedom must respect boundaries, and that we live in a world with other individuals.

Rather than blunder through life selfishly, we must think our way through life selfLESSly. In this way, we become enlightened enough to see the big picture, and understand the benefits of fitting ourselves into society on purpose.

How Much Change is Enough?

Simply stated: the right amount. From a grocery store transaction standpoint, there is one clear answer. It is neither too much nor too little. It is a balance; a FIT state. When a clerk counts back your change, there are certain bounding elements that are external to the desires of either party. Natural laws of fairness dictate that neither party get the better of the other.

However, this is not as clear cut or universal with regards to person change. Change, in both senses, merely indicates a difference between one thing and another. In the grocery store, your change is the difference between what you owed and what you gave (a $20 bill, say). In life, your change is the difference between who you are now, and who you become through education and experience. That education—or more precisely, what you gain from it—is the difference.

While I don't believe it is possible to be over-educated in general—especially when the education is broad—it is possible to take too many things to heart. In this way, an individual can needlessly toil to change himself in areas where the benefits of such a change are not worth the cost. Each individual is different from every other individual, of course, so this process must necessarily be tailored to suit each.

For example, a person who is an extrovert might find it difficult to focus on a lecture, daydreaming of more action-centered activities. They can't wait to get out in the field—for sports, sales calls, parties, or networking. They struggle to follow endless charts and graphs, even those which accurately depict the current situation and ought to equip them of their next move. Should they be trained in the art of memorizing these graphs, or should they simply be allowed to learn from trial and error?

In the opposite case—and, I believe, a more widespread problem—a person who is an introvert finds it difficult to focus at a party, desperately planning an escape. They can't wait to get away from the action—to recover themselves; to collect, categorize, and formulate an understanding. They struggle to take in the endless tidbits of information, when the real focus is merely to meet a great many people. Should they be trained in the art of networking, or should they simply be allowed the time to fully absorb each interaction?

Ultimately, the answer to the question depends upon and understanding of where you are right now, and where you want to be at some defined point in the future. Note that while the span of time between now and a dated goal varies by the goal and the person, for everyone who has a goal it is essential to commit to the date. When you set a date for well-defined goal, and begin to understand where you are right now, you can plot a course to change.

This too, varies from a learn-by-doing process to a carefully composed plan. Nevertheless, the main lesson here is that when we understand our strengths, we must utilize those strengths. For every strength in our character, we have correlating weakness. Never attempt to reach a goal by changing your inherent weaknesses. While this can be done, it is rarely worth it. Weaknesses should not be ignored—they are real obstacles—but for those boulders whose destruction risks the destruction of a correlating strength—again, it's not worth dying over.

Signs

Some people swear by the guidance of "signs." By this, of course, I am not talking about road signs. I am talking about coincidences which, in a certain context, can be thought of as an indicator of either correct or incorrect action. Sometimes these refer back to a choice that was made, and seem to define whether or not it was a good choice.

More often, however, people are fixated on signs that foretell something about a coming choice, or the results of a present choice. Part of this is fear. We try to externalize a decision we don't want to make. Therefore, we attach the decision to some arbitrary coincidence and call it "the will of God," etc.

The other part, is wisely differing to the "still small voice" within. Most of the time, difficult choices have a logical answer. The problem arises when emotions get involved. I should note here that emotions have their own brand of "logic," and must be considered as part of the decision.

When emotions are attached to a decision, fear clouds judgement. Our tendency is to make haste to relieve the tension by going with the loudest choice—the emotional one. Usually, we already know this is the wrong the choice, or there would be no indecision in the first place. What we need is something to crystalize the right choice, so it can withstand the flurry of noisy fears.

It is actually impossible to externalize a personal decision using anything other than another thinking person. In the absence of a qualified mentor, we look to signs to give us the extra push we need. I often flip a coin to make menial decisions—ones where I don't think I care about the outcome, but need to make some choice.

The interesting thing about this custom of coin-flipping is that it reveals the truly internal nature of such a process of decision making. Next time you try this, pay attention to your own feelings. I've been divided between two choices, flipped a coin (to externalize the decision), then felt I'd rather do the opposite choice. The coin's landing (the sign) doesn't control you, it merely reveals the choice you knew was right in the first place.

Use signs wisely. Don't follow blindly, but let them reveal the path.

All People Love Popcorn

In Anna Karenina, one of Tolstoy's characters is said to have been acting rightly, but thinking wrongly. The author describes the way in which philosophers invent a structure of words—an "edifice"—to suit their developing theories. These words are common words, but have special meaning in the context of the philosopher's discussion. Tolstoy's character is described as suffering angst over the collapse of such edifices whenever he thinks too hard about them.

By its very nature, philosophy is hard to define. It deals with concepts for which we have a limited vocabulary of concrete words and phrases. For this reason, we must be very careful when choosing words for generalized statements.

When a person makes the statement, "All people love popcorn," he is asserting a broad generalization based upon his limited worldview. If he believes his statement is truth, then he necessarily founds some of his other assertions upon it. For this reason, he may see nothing wrong with serving it as the solitary snack at a party.

He can go on for some time, believing this—unchallenged. However, eventually someone will say, "I don't like plain popcorn." This doesn't shake his belief, but perhaps suggests it be amended to: "All people like some popcorn."

However, the more he mixes with a variety of people and cultures, and the more he reads and watches diverse media, the more likely he is to find someone who says: "I don't like popcorn." This shatters the edifice. What amendment can be made? "Some people like some popcorn"? No kidding. That's a non-statement, and not worth saying.

There are two reactions to this: denial and acceptance. Obviously, this is a silly example. However, to a person who hangs his entire worldview upon a similar general statement, the person who would disprove that statement is a scary person to meet. He changes everything, by collapsing the edifice upon which a life is built.

Consider the implications of the statement: "All people are evil." If all people are evil, then it follows that people are worthless and expendable. Therefore, the leader is he who can acquire the most and control the masses. This is a scarcity view of the world, and inundates everything the person does on the way to success.

On the other hand, if a person acts with good intentions, but thinks all people are evil, he necessarily smothers his own aspirations because he won't do evil, but believes it is the only way to success.

Too many good-hearted people are stopped by wrong thinking.

The Big Tease

An art teacher I once had asked her class the provocative question of which is sexier: the female nude, or a woman in lingerie? Mostly, the guys answered that the nude would be more arousing. Without a visual example, it was difficult to say for certain. However, she told us that someone had done a study and found that when a group drawing a female nude was compared to a group drawing a woman in lingerie, the latter group was significantly more distracted.

So the woman with parts covered is more distracting than the woman with parts exposed?

Yes. The reason is quite simply this: the nude presents no mystery. The lingerie keeps some things undiscovered—it stimulates the imagination. Mature reservation—the big tease—keeps us on the hook for learning more. What one does one step before the blowout, makes the difference between short-term satisfaction and long-term value. Children want the extreme, adults pace themselves.

Let me put it another way. Art is like a puzzle, the harder it is to solve, the more impact it has. Take the Rubik's Cube, for example. It has become a household name. It's notoriously difficult to solve, and there's a constant flow of newcomers trying to figure it out for themselves.

Yet YouTube is full of people doing amazing stuff with it (think you can do it in less than a minute? blindfolded?) Why not seek out expert advice? I have a program on my iPod that can solve a Cube in less than 20 moves when I input the colors. I've only used it once. Why?

Because there is value in composing a system by which you can solve the puzzle. Sure, you can learn from the experts, but where's the fun in that? What you learn from solving a Cube is not how to solve a Cube, but how to solve a mystery. It embeds a structure in your mind for juggling details and seeing the unseen.

The point of art is to instill something greater than an answer. By playing "hard to get," it teaches us how to search. The viewing of a nude breast or of the solution to a puzzle is of a very finite value. The struggle to get there and the growth that comes from the struggle is what creates lasting value.

The harder it is to accomplish, the more victorious you are when you do!

Parental Guidance

"Parental Guidance" implies the parents' involvement. It is not meant to serve merely as a gauge of whether or not a child is allowed to watch something. It is as foolish to keep difficult media from a child who may learn lessons from it, as it is to blindly hand any media to a child regardless of the content's rating or the child's preparedness.

Media is not a babysitter!

Parents who treat television, movies, and other media like a babysitter fall into two categories, which roughly align with political labels. "Conservative" parents desire censored, beige, moral-laden media content which they can trust not to harm their children in their absence. "Liberal" parents desire that their children be grown up enough to handle whatever it is they watch. Both views fundamentally suffer from the absence of parental guidance.

There is nothing wrong with either of these views in moderation. As a child grows up in such a diverse multimedia culture, it is only natural that they should desire and be allowed to learn from a mix of media sources—even a mix of true and false is useful with wise parental guidance. On one hand, parents have a duty to protect their children from the vulgar and the biased, but on the other hand, age is only a rule of thumb, and moderate roughness merely emulates life—if this view is taught by wise parental guidance.

This may be an overly general observation, but it seems to me that there are some inevitable dynamics here. Namely, that those whose parents let them watch "everything," eventually create rebellion among those whose parents let them watch "nothing." Without maturity, the first group will naturally indulge in extremes—and therefore recommend them. This creates poisonous biases and stunted emotional growth. As children, the second group is naturally curious about what they might be missing, and so defy their parents, secretly consuming the media recommended by the "everything" group.

Parents who are absent from their children's media diets—for whatever reason—cannot guide their intellectual and emotional growth. Parents of the "everything" group are absent in spirit because they tend to behave more as one of the kids than as parents. Parents of the "nothing" group are absent mostly in body because they have a strong work ethic, thought they live by a moral code which places value on their children.

Of course, there are a vast number of reasons that either parental group is absent in whatever form. Furthermore, the general descriptions I give of each group assume that the parents care enough about their children to have an opinion about the media they view. When physical absence means working to provide, and when spiritual absence means trying to relate, the parents are demonstrating love according to their own perspective.

The point is most media today—of whatever political ilk—tends to accomplish the same end of alienating children from parents. Whether this is by design, as some suppose, or merely collateral damage from the industrial career machine, I can't say. As certain as media is broken down into genres which exclude one cliche from another, so media is designed to capitalize on the gulf between parent and child. So either the child must become the parent, or the parent must become the child.

It seems to me that the solution is to teach parents to be children enough to explore, and grown-up enough to avoid pitfalls. It is not a solution to all the world's problems, but what is needed in the media war is not more extremes, but more moderation. Art transcends genre and, therefore, the human divisions associated with it. Kids won't understand serious literature and parents won't engage with sappy kids' shows.

I assure you: there is a middle ground.

MEDIA: Up - Pixar has a great track record for putting out films that bridge the gap between children and adults with enough meat for discussion. Up begins with a montage of two young people's life together: their dreams, their struggles, growing old, and finally the wife's death. The elderly Carl literally takes his house (the symbol of his whole life) on an airborne journey to realize his and his late wife's dream.

If I Knew Then...

"If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have wasted all that time."

This is a common thought for anyone who has persevered through some trial in life, and come out the other side with nothing material to show for it. Sometimes driven people can become so focused on their goals—particularly if it is a material goal—that they fail to address problems along the way.

Contrary to geometric reasoning, in human existence, the shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line. For one, navigating the minefield necessitates well-planned deviation from a straight path. For two, rough terrain may cause one to fall to one side or another even on a straight path.

Yes, a goal is vital and must be kept in view, but equally important is managing day-to-day concerns.

If you knew along the way what struggles you'd have, you'd likely never begin. If you did, you'd take a vastly different path which would bring its own unique struggles. It is from the struggles that we learn life's lessons.

If we knew all lessons, there would be no reason to do anything—if fact, there would be no way to do anything. Do you suppose anything worth having comes without some struggle created by an unlearned lesson? If so, what prevents you from having everything you've ever desired?

The truth is that when nothing material is gained from a struggle, that fact does not mean that the time spent in the struggle was a wasted. A series of lessons must contribute to developing the character within you that is worthy of attaining the goal.

If you knew then what you know now, then you know no more now than you ever did. Furthermore, you know nothing about learning from your mistakes—and are doomed to repeat them.

I pity the fool!

New Faith Culture

We're in a post-religion society, but we're in a new faith culture. Churches are fraught with so many ill conceptions that a more subtle, pragmatic approach to faith is most beneficial. The understanding of true principles (which all stable religions have in common) need not—and must not—be limited to the study of one central text.

If that one text is perfect, as an adherent must suppose, it cannot explain all the problems of the world. Cannot, because a perfect text cannot by definition contain imperfect thinking, which is at the root of all problems. To follow, but not adopt, a line of imperfect thinking is to education yourself in the art of repairing that thinking.

No one has ever won an argument by forcefully asserting his position. If all he knows is his doctrine—even if it gives him perfect clarity—how can he hope to enlighten others without knowing where they are? Understanding the current worldview of your audience—and more importantly, the individuals within it—is paramount to leading them away from their errors.

Whenever churches attempt to indoctrinate people with this method, they are necessarily met with resistance. Unfortunately, most religions have built-in blinders to this problem. They expect resistance and heckling whenever they attempt to share their message, and explain it as the influence of "the devil" or of "the world" rather than as their own lack of understanding of that world.

When churches are independent, they tend to maintain divisions from other churches and the world. From other churches their division is based upon petty doctrine; from the world, it is based upon insane levels of nonsensical beliefs—or at least, unnecessary amounts of what makes no sense to outsiders.

What this amounts to is supreme and understandable skepticism for any and all religions (hence, we are a post-religion society). Unbelievers and outsiders see nothing but schism and disagreement between warring sects, each trying blindly and aggressively to recruit from an increasingly resistant crowd. Being apart of that cynical crowd, therefore, becomes more attractive than anything the religions offer.

Petty differences and misunderstandings are the fog that keeps us groping in the dark. Contrast all this darkness and hopelessness with the light of truth: having faith means believing in the good qualities of human nature, and using your innate abilities to bring those qualities out of people. It means unity on common ground and a de-prioritization of things that don't matter.

FEATURED MEDIA: Saved! - A fun movie about some of the situations we can find ourselves in when we forget to keep the faith and merely obsess over the religion.

Alienation

I had an experience today that made me feel like I was from another planet. I met a guy on the job a few days back, who seemed alright to me—as long as he kept his mouth shut. The owner of a house I was painting had hired this carpenter to redo some trim work, and despite his friendly, professional demeanor in front of the owner, beneath the surface lay a vulgar child.

Normally, I like to think while I work—about a story I'm writing, topics for this blog, or politics and philosophy in general. It passes the time wonderfully and give me a chance to clarify my thinking by filing away things I've recently learned. If I'm not able to concentrate due to fatigue or whatever, I try to listen to something productive or artful—informative talks by great minds, audio versions of the classics, or artistic music. None of this is the normal fare for broadcast radio.

Worse than the faults of television are the faults of radio, in my opinion. Not only does most of the music make it impossible to think (that's the point), but you're hammered with ads that reveal the markers' understanding of their audience. Namely, that the audience is made up of people with the emotional intelligence of a preschooler.

Mostly, I'm inclined to give skilled tradesman—who make up the bulk of the daytime audience—the benefit of the doubt, if for no other reason than that I currently make my living as one. However, in this case, I think they hit the nail on the head.

He started playing some rap/techno station, which would have been interesting if it hadn't been a top hits type station. Artistic music deals with a variety of lyrical themes, expressing a wide range of emotions. XM and Sirius are subscription based, and tend to play a more offbeat variety. Top hits mostly center on love (or just sex) as a theme, and anger or sadness as the emotions. ("I want to @#$% you like an animal.")

After admitting to me that "this is the first day in a long time, I've come to work sober," he started prompting me about my musical tastes. This led him to drop "typical male" comments about women and things that can be done to them. I began to dislike the guy.

At some point, I mention that I'm married. He expounded upon his philosophy of marriage—basically, that women should be seen and not heard, and that the only reason I'm still married is because I haven't realized I don't like her yet. At that point, I decided he was positively wasting my time, and was glad when he left and didn't come back that day.

Today, he compounded what I already regarded as unlikable about him. My only solace was that he was talking to my dad and not directly to me. My dad, however—being a devout Christian and active member of his church— was about as polar-opposite to the guy as could be. The guy opened the conversation by saying, "I was screwing this chick..." and ended by saying "...and she was married."

Upon learning of my dad's religious disposition (and hearing, I believe for him, I much needed retelling of the Christian story), he responded as any man of the world would—like a 4 year-old. In a sort of conversational ninjitsu that would prompt Freud to write another book, he changed the subject to the criticism of another tradesman whose crew was on the same job.

He seemed to search his mind for the most vulgar expressions of "rip-off" he could find. He said the owner (a woman) was going to get "f---ed" by this guy's unfair business tactics. He added, "ass f---ed, and face f---ed!" to the list. If it wasn't sad, I'd have begun to hate him.

But really, it is sad. This reaction was an obvious attempt to display that my dad's "preaching"—as he no doubt felt it was—had no effect on him whatsoever. He believes that he is some sort of free-thinking individual, but he is sadly mistaken. He is playing the role of a child in a man's body—stunted in his emotional growth by the worldly influences he desires to be steeped in, and perpetually easy game for beer ads, casino ads, sex-related ads, and eventually pharmaceutical drug ads (for the things he'll catch).

This vulgar emotional outburst has more negative impact on him than anyone else. The point of faith is to find peace, but he is not at peace. The more he tries to prove he cannot be converted to "perfection" (which is never the point, or your religion is wrong), the more he shuts doors to relationships that could help him. I have myself, decided I would never hire him as he is.

Imagine your life is like a Facebook profile or a Twitter feed. If all you do is spread vulgarity and complaints—though you have every right to do so—you will only succeed in driving away friends/followers who don't share your views. If my dad alienates this guy by sharing the gospel, so much the better for my dad—he probably wouldn't benefit from the guy's company anyway. But if this guy alienates people like myself or my dad, he loses business referrals and other relational connections that would improve his life.

That's just not worth the risk.

FEATURED MEDIA: How to Win Friends and Influence People - The classic guide to repairing and developing relationships of all kinds.

Irrational Rationale, Part 3

Spirituality

Irrational rationale happens in the human heart. We love and want to be loved. We fear and want to avoid the object of our fears. Unlike animals, we are able build a civilization upon faith. That is, we are capable of thinking long term and of recording our history, and so we are able to learn from past failures in order to improve. Our ability to understand abstract concepts enables us to act effectively without concrete data.

Yet no matter how high we rise, all our systems are bound by certain truths. The integrity of our civilization is dependent upon its members' broad understanding of these truths and their willingness to act in accordance with their nature. We rationalize irrationally when we lose confidence in our understanding of nature and become too afraid to take a leap of faith.

Ultimately, all failures in human history have been a result of an inability or unwillingness to span the gap between rational thought (the mind) and irrational thought (the heart). Historically, religions have been the guiding light to meet this need. When they promote faith over fear, they effectively become a source of liberal education.

However, fear of God's wrath can be a lever for clergy (et al.) whose irrational rationale leads them to adopt tyrannical methods of spreading their doctrine. Whether or not a person, church, or religion is right in their interpretation of a holy text is for the individual and his community to decide amongst themselves. If a congregation does not accept an elder's opinion, it is the responsibility of the elder to clarify or abandon that view. It is not right for him to call down the wrath of God upon his opponents when he might be mistaken.

In his book, Tribes, Seth Godin offers phenomenal into the difference between "religion" and "faith." Though most people use them interchangeably, they are on different levels. Religion belongs to the mental, rational realm. It is the collection of texts, artifacts, practices, symbols, etc. of a given people (chosen or adopted). It is a teacher and reminder of faith.

Faith belongs to the ethereal, emotional realm. It is the set of principles or natural laws that transcend individual religions—an undercurrent that has the power to unite all peoples. Despite its irrational nature, it does possess a nature which can be understood. It can be argued that faith is a spectrum from fear to faith. Furthermore, that fear is a lack of understanding of the significant events in life. Faith is the discipline to rationalize the irrational heart through a continued quest for truth.

This is vastly different from the current political notion (at least in America) that we are somehow being open to all religions by seeking to remove symbols of Christianity from our national heritage. It is especially laughable to consider the irrational thought that a level-headed Muslim would be offended by the Ten Commandments, when the Commandments are the perhaps most explicit expression of natural principles that exist in any religion.

Anyone who thinks this, might do well to examine their thought process. Do we think anyone would be offended by the expression, "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15)? And of the Muslims, do our prejudices suppose they hate the Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13)?

Our hearts are our greatest blessing, which gives us the ability to love, to forgive, to believe, to envision, and to overcome great obstacles. Our ability to sometimes have irrational thoughts allows us to bend our understanding of the world around us—to see around the next corner, as it were. Without it, we could not build a civilization, but when it gets out of hand, it can tear a rift between the concrete prison of the real world and the abstract world of vision.

And I don't know which is worse: to be trapped in the prison with no hope, or to be trapped in the dreamworld with no means to enjoy it.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Irrational Rationale, Part 1

It is easier to arbitrate from on high than to do the hard work of actually caring. Similarly, it is easier to accept pre-packaged plans handed out by "experts" than it is to investigate the matter personally. This dichotomy creates the age-old class system, which it is popular to rail against, but mostly accepted as a necessary evil. However, to reason that a rational system of force is the only way to organize society, is to make the irrational assumption that people cannot be brought to reason through the examination of their irrational ideas.

Economics

Economics is a relatively simple science, but is a brutal science in its simplicity. It is no more complicated in its natural form than that resources fed into a given system must produce a positive output from the system. If a positive output isn't attained, then the system is broken. This has been made complicated by political arbitration—which isn't strictly bad. However, as certain unhealthy habits are known to cause cancer in the human body—an inescapable condition—so unfit practices with money create inescapable debts.

Cancer and other diseases take the physical lives of loved ones in the same way that financial mis-managements take away their lifestyles. In order to avoid this dreaded outcome, a measure of proactive discipline is needed. Those who are just starting their independent lives need to work to develop a savings account, if they are to remain independent. Those who are "successful" in their own independent lives need to open opportunities for talented young creators and performers.

There is no doubt that it is emotionally difficult for young people to attain the needed discipline, and it is also emotionally difficult for successful people to risk investing their hard-earned money on such undisciplined people. Therefore, irrational rationale has led us to adopt a system whereby those just beginning are given money, upon certain conditions, by those successful people. This money is then to be paid back with "interest" regardless of what is done with it. This is seen as the only option. However, debt is the beginning of servitude, has the same wasting effect of cancer, and therefore, leads to the "need" of more debt.

These debts create a trapped lower class, which must constantly labor to fill the holes created by the compounding effect of interest. At this point, it is "safe" (not emotionally risky) to employ these desperate individuals to fill menial positions as cogs in a machine. If they don't comply with the orders handed down from on high, then they risk losing the job they desperately need. That's scary, but so is dependence on someone who is to afraid to care about you as a human!

TO BE CONTINUED...

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Leaders and Followers

These are two terms that I had no real understanding of five years ago, and I suspect the same is true of most people today. If you had asked me to define what a leader was, I would have described the position of President, the job of a CEO, or the forceful temperament I thought was necessary in either. If asked to describe a follower, I would have made reference to barnyard animals.

This is a perfect demonstration of what unbalanced media can do to the minds of its viewers. By constantly seeking to be in agreement with the mind of the masses in order to maintain expanding (if increasingly unstable) viewership, mass media entertainment unknowingly follows it into the inevitable depths of pessimism. Media that criticizes the world for its problems merely re-enforces the thinking that created the problems.

The pessimistic view that all "leaders" are authoritarian and unlikable, has the effect of dissuading individuals in the masses from seeking to lead. Their bosses then play the part they are left—to force the unenthusiastic masses to follow orders like sheep. These "followers" in turn play the part they are left—to keep their heads down and do no more than is expected. The casualty here, of course, is art.

Great leaps forward in history, while many times arising from strife, must first be fueled by the momentum of inspiration. The American Revolutionary War wasn't fought on a whim, but was kindled by true leaders that stoked the fires of imagination in the people. Only when the people could feel what freedom would be like, could they summon the courage to rise up. This sort of leadership is an art form, and the media of the day helped crystallize the message of what could be, not what was.

Today, we are inundated with media (both through formal education then through television and other entertainment) that portrays the positional leader. While today's positional leaders are not royalty, media uses language as if they were—especially with regard to celebrities. In cases where the position was "earned" rather than given by succession, the perspective (and perhaps the truth) is that the successor must have done something dishonest to get there.

But much of the frustration surrounding this type of leadership stems from a misunderstanding of what leadership is. First of all, the position does not make one a leader, merely a manager or a king. Secondly, getting people to do what they already know how to do isn't leadership, it's redundancy. A true leader encourages people to grow, and true followers are naturally inspired to do what they do—and more.

A follower is not a sheep, but a student. And he is not a student that is being molded into a cog, but one that is blossoming with all the uniqueness of a wildflower. A follower in this sense, is a person who knows he does not yet possess the ability to lead. While he may never surpass the skill of the leader he is following, he will become some level of leader himself.

The War of Ideas

To be on either side of the Question is to fight only what you can see—namely, your opponents; but to seek truth is to fight nature itself through the lonely exploration of the middle-ground despite crossfire. There are many questions (with a lower case "q") that have definitive answers despite many people's ignorance of those answers. However, there are some where we have not yet found definite answers, those whose answers are critical to solving the world's problems.

In considering these Questions, there is a huge difference between being moderate and being mediocre. To be a spectator at the game of life is to merely watch the competition of ideas in the political and social arena. Mediocrity is waiting for the hard questions to be answered by someone else—then reading the scores with an idle interest.

The great people of history who have been in this lonely middle-ground certainly studied the scoreboard of the competitors who volleyed over their heads. Their interest in finding answers and the intensity of their search, however, led them to examine this war of ideas up close—and not without risk.

Well-read people see faults and virtues in every opinion. Big thinking people focus on the virtues with an eye on unity, rather than schism. But, alas, it is easier to fall to one side where the company is welcoming and the enemies are readily identified. A place of labels and uniforms, where conforming one's speech to a fixed ideology is the clear path to high status.

The question is why do you defend the points you do? Is it because you believe your opinion is the true answer to the question? Or is it because you gain something else from aligning yourself with others of the same mind? Depending on the situation, there may be nothing wrong with either reason—and you may, in fact, be defending the truth.

Just remember, in the war of ideas, it isn't the truth because you think it is or wish it was. It's only the truth if it actually is!

FEATURED MEDIA: A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman's Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide - I'll admit, I haven't read this book yet, but it promises to be thought provoking. Articles I've read by Mr. Siljander sound clearly reasoned and point out the contemporary political stance of "shoot first, ask questions never." Our government is a long way from making peace in the Middle East, and mostly due to ignoring diplomatic approaches to unity.

Language is the Key to Thought

I've never considered myself a "car guy," but have nevertheless undertaken a project to restore a '65 MGB. Knowing nothing about cars except what's taught in Driver's Ed, I lacked any knowledge of the basic parts and the names of those parts. Everything I've learned has come from reading, looking at diagrams, and tinkering with the car itself.

I admit, I didn't realize that I was learning much at all. However, this past weekend, my car (the one I drive regularly) had some sort of issue which prevented it from starting. Now, I wish I could say that I miraculously figured it out on my own. This was not the case. I consulted a couple of people who I knew to be bona fide "car guys" to help me troubleshoot.

The point is how clear my thinking was in regard to the troubleshooting process. Where I would previously have been at a loss to describe the problem in words other than "thingy" and "doo-hickey," I surprised myself at recalling the correct jargon. When I crawled under the car—surprise!—the components I saw were easily identifiable despite the two cars' similarity being no more than apples and oranges.

Describing this sensation to my wife, she replied, "You're learning the language. Language is the key to thought." In other words, once complex ideas can be given a name, they can more easily be related to other ideas.

Equipped with this new revelation, I re-examined what I believe to be the future of media. In such meditations, new understanding is reached even on the most well-tread paths of thought.

I came to the realization that language is not only limited to words, but also to visual forms. It was not because I knew the name for a transmission that I was able to identify the one in my car, but because I understood the form of a transmission. Having learned more extensively what each car part does within the system, my brain was able to capture the range of shapes to which a given part is limited—by physical laws, among other things.

Truth in Fiction works the same way. The story (a vehicle) can take the audience to any place the creator can imagine. The engine, however, is limited to a certain range of forms—according to natural law. The one distinction in this analogy is that while violation of forms in a car will prevent the car from reaching a destination at all, fictional stories can be so contrived as to reach a desired destination despite flaws.

Nevertheless, the quality of each journey is dependent upon the driving parts' fitting together in harmony. Moreover, the experience of a harmonious journey teaches our unconscious minds about a standard of excellence—against which other experiences will be compared.

If all one knows is a crummy existence, full of lies, deceit, and poverty, then all one can expect from life is the same. However, if one trapped in this view of the world, views truth-based media, his mind is given a higher standard to which it can aspire.

Therefore, books are certainly important for teaching of language and its uses. Yet, there is much untapped merit in visual media, which teaches the language of forms and the standards against which one can measure his daily experiences.

Subtle Distinctions

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - US Declaration of Independence

Common language is never as concrete in its meaning as the writer would like. Simply because you know what you're saying, and you have a deep understanding of words, doesn't mean your reader will take your meaning.

Recently, I posted "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of stuff..." to Twitter and Facebook, as a reference to the above quote from the Declaration of Independence. My intention was to point out the fallacy of the consumeristic idea that stuff = happiness, which pervades our culture and media.

My friend Matt, however, pointed out an historical distinction which I was aware of, but did not consider when writing the post. He observed that philosophers like John Locke had stressed "property" as an important right in place of "happiness." There are two subtle distinctions in language here. The first is my intention with the word "stuff." The second is Matt's understanding of the word "property."

In using the word "stuff," I was intending it in the George Carlin sense of trinkets or possessions which we pile up as a measure of status. Stuff, in this sense, is empty and does not lead to happiness, but to the pursuit of more stuff in the name of seeking happiness. Matt seems to have missed my meaning—which is entirely my fault, because I created the post. As is indicated by his assertion, he took "stuff" to merely be an informal word for "property."

By my understanding, however, "property" in 18th century philosophy referred not to individual things like candlesticks and washbasins, but to those things owned as a means to do business. These things include [chiefly] land and all that is on the land to add to its value. Property is a tool to generate an independent lifestyle, and therefore, happiness in whatever manner a free citizen might define it. I could, of course, be wrong in my understanding.

All-in-all this example illustrates the challenge with contemporary bite-sized media blasts, such as are found on Twitter, banner ads, magazine covers, etc. While it might be a benefit forcing people to condense their thoughts into 140 characters, each of us has a different experience with the depth of our words' meanings. We must be cautious when loading words with meaning that we are understood.

As always, I differ to Stephen Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: "Habit 5 - Seek first to understand, then to be understood."

FEATURED MEDIA: Lost in Translation - An aging actor whose life is empty meets the young wife of a celebrity photographer in a Tokyo hotel where they are staying on business. Removed from those around them by cultural and language barriers, the two bond in an unlikely friendship.