Experience Life

Much is learned in spirit despite the best efforts of practical theory to be all-inclusive. Knowledge is great, but until you build a house (or make a movie, or run a company) you really don't know how to do it. I'm talking about experience and the wisdom that is only earned through experience. No one ever accomplishes anything great with low expectations, though high expectations and lofty goals often mean failure.

One immutable principle of life is that one cannot succeed without failure. It seems counter-intuitive, but it's true. Study the lives of successful people and you will inevitably stumble upon a mountain of previous failures. Of course, if one never studies successful people—or has no mentor or proper role model—that person would necessarily come to the conclusion that success is luck. I mean, it must be luck if we mere mortals are mired in struggles and failure—unable to move forward—while a select few rise to the top?

When you hear that an Olympic skier broke both her legs during a bad spill in training for the games, what do you think? She's finished? When you find out she is back on the same slopes as soon as she can walk again, what do you think? Idiot? Or do you think "Champion"? If you are anything like me, raised on laughing at videos of people hurting themselves, you probably think the former. I know I used to, and consequently I was terrified to stretch myself on the slopes.

The mass mantras of today have us sold on the idea that what we should be learning from mistakes is to fear them. Which, in the days of the Apollo program with billions of dollars on the line, used to be a vital response. But not any more. Today, with the internet, social networking, and any number of consumer electronics, a person can be a media mogul for a few hundred dollars. It only takes the willingness to fail until you find your niche.

So how about it, are you willing to give your spirit a stir? Live a little, put yourself and your weaknesses on display.

Sure beats the walking dead.

FEATURED MEDIA: "The Pursuit of Happyness" is based on the true story of Chris Gardner, whose failure as a salesman led to him raising his young son on the streets. Instead of giving up on his dream, Chris pursues a stockbroker internship by day, while sleeping in a homeless shelter at night. The film's director, Gabriele Muccino, is quoted as saying, "To understand the American Dream, you have to be a foreigner."

"Brainwashing: Seven Ways to Reinvent Yourself."

“Years ago, when you were about four years old, the system set out to persuade you of something that isn’t true."
- Seth Godin

Seth Godin is a phenomenal writer and thinker. He has written a number of books related to current society, especially with regard to our social media culture. ChangeThis has published his new "manifesto" entitled, "Brainwashing: Seven Ways to Reinvent Yourself."

Seth's manifesto echoes what FITmedia stands for. Happiness is found in chasing your purpose, and the energy to succeed at it comes from happiness. No one has to be stuck, but some people need to see things a different way, or see different things entirely.

Download the PDF file here.

Technology and Trash Compactors [Updated]

[updated Jan 11, 2011]

Sci-fi has a special place in my heart. I was raised on Star Wars, so I guess that makes me a geek. But isn't it just fun to see the imaginings of the future, and ponder whether it will really be that way? Well, can it?

Robots of all kinds populate the universes of sci-fi stories, from mechanical Swiss army knives like Star Wars' R2-D2, to neurotic, useless androids like Douglas Adams' Marvin from Hitchhiker's Guide; and from personable trash compactors like Pixar's WALL-E, to human-simulants like Star Trek: NG's Data that have all the personality of a trash compactor. Robots fill numerous roles in stories, they are characters or props, friends or enemies, humanoid or mechanoid.

One thing seems to be a constant through all this: robots are immortal. I've seen them be destroyed, of course, but I've never seen them age. Now you might think, "Well, they're robots!" Good point, but do you own any piece of technology that is immortal?

WALL-E has been at his job (unaided by humans) for 700 years. Marvin and Bender (Futurama) both get left in time, to be recovered more than a millenium later. Will we ever create technology that outlives the pyramids?

Somehow, I think it is impossible. Even if technology didn't have the lifespan of a gerbil, most becomes obsolete before a child learns to use it (which is at 3 years, in my experience). As long as technology continues to improve, it will continue to generate obsolesense and waste. The wasted products can only be reused to the degree that they still operate, and only be recycled to the degree that they are made of quality components.

But then, if they really are made of quality components, wouldn't they tend to operate for a longer period of time? Longer? Yes. Forever? Not so much. I don't endorse slowing the progress of technology coersively, but I would encourage those in the market for progressive technology to consider how much waste "forever" will produce if we continue to treat non-consumable products as if they were biodegradable. For a wonderful illustration, I encourage you to watch WALL-E, even if you don't have kids.

I will say that there is nothing inherently wrong with "buy'n large" culture, provided that we can squeeze every ounce of value out of the products we consume. People make their living through the production and sale of goods and services. It is accurate to say that the more we buy, the better the economy gets, but this is not the whole truth. The truth is that when you pay for a product, you also pay for its waste. So when a given product is "used up" its remains represent the volume of trash that you bought and wasted money on. Therefore, an economy that is based upon a high volume of purchases, but not upon high value products, is actually degenerating.

Ideally, "buy'n large" economies should focus on producing and marketing items that have zero waste. Even with the sale of information, it is difficult to say that this is possible because it depends so much on the individual's ability and will to extract the value. One man's junk is another man's treasure, after all. Perhaps the best way to encourage prosperity in a consumer culture is to focus on producing food—the ultimate consumable.

Our bodies have a built-in trash compactor: our systems absorb all useful nutrients from our digested food, and whatever we can't use gets excreted in a reduced form—and even a biodegradable one. If science is to benefit us in the future, it seems to me that it ought to invest its time in making better food, not better robots.

What would be the point if our technology outlives us?

The Story of FITmedia

FITmedia is an organizational philosophy based upon three components of sustainability: freedom, integrity, and truth. Simply stated, how well the pieces fit, is how fit the pieces are. Imagine a jigsaw puzzle that has been left out in the rain. If the pieces are water-logged, then it is very difficult for them to work together in harmony, each piece's "baggage" needing more space that the adjacent piece can give.

In organizations, this can be seen by its effect on the three elements of man: body, mind, and soul (or one's economic, political, and spiritual life). Materially speaking, this unnatural "baggage" leads to unfair excesses and deficiencies based upon each person's strength of force, which in turn effects that person's economic state. In the political realm (by its broadest, organizational sense), it is a person's clout, rank, or manipulative ability that reigns. Spiritually, the most charismatic leads by imposing his warped world view on those who are "lost."

However, to be "FIT" is to be free from arbitrary constraint, acting with integrity, and informed by the truth of what constitutes integrity. The more the individuals of a society are FIT, the more the society itself will be in a state of fitness. When each person knows his or her specific fit or purpose, the organization both avoids redundant activities and gaps in what needs to be done, therefore increasing effectiveness and economy. Politically, a FIT organization advances only individuals who demonstrate a hunger to learn and a will to improve within their sphere of influence. Spiritually (or as a matter of the heart), those who fill their FIT are respected as sources of wisdom and mentorship.

This whole process is dependent upon the correct information being distributed within the organization, and it is media through which information is distributed. It is the responsibility of those who are FIT to expose others to the media that will repair their thinking, or indeed, get them thinking at all. Often it is not a matter of the media being "correct" but of the media being challenging. Enough challenges to a person's thinking will sharpen the mind, and ultimately reveal the truth.

"Such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. The sun needs no inscription to distinguish him from darkness."
- Thomas Paine

LOST and Found

[Modified from posting on CTIF.blogspot.com]

When I got serious about personal development education, my eyes were opened to the concept of classical learning, or learning through the Liberal Arts. My introduction was an article by Mortimer J. Adler entitled "Education for All," which made clear for me something that I had long had a sense of, but was unable to articulate. My vision for FITmedia is essentially to "sophisticate" people to the principles and concepts of the classics, but to start them at a level accessible to the average American (i.e.: movies and television). By assembling a consortium of like minds, we will naturally acquire the resources needed to develop an intermediate form of classic. Our writers and creators need to be well-versed in classical learning for this idea to gain traction.

One of the reasons that I got so excited about this article is that it confirmed my belief in the importance of immersive serial fiction, the best example of which is ABC's "LOST." If there's a shining ray of hope for television it's "LOST." I'll cut right to the point: the Executive Producers, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse are avid readers. Though, not everything they've cited as influential to this story is a classic, there certainly is a wealth of philosophy embodied in the show. In fact, as an ode to their scholarship, they've even named key characters after philosophers: John Locke, a man who feels he's found his purpose on the Island, named for the English philosopher and originator of Natural Law theory; Jeremy Bentham, an alias, named for the father of Utilitarianism; and Edmund Burke, named for the founder of modern conservatism. Also referenced in names are Jean-Jaques Rousseau, David Hume, Jane Austen, C.S. Lewis, Michael Faraday, and Stephen Hawking.

Told in a non-linear fashion with flashbacks, the show is about the survivors of a plane crash on a mysterious island, their lives leading up to the crash, and the tangled web of relationships between them. The integrity of the story is dependent upon the viewer watching every episode in order, as it's more like a long movie than a TV series. But, you can easily find a promotional synopsis for that info. What's difficult to market to the masses is that it has a character-driven story, rather than a plot-driven story, and that it deals with such subject matter as leadership, destiny, fate, faith, and the conflict between science and faith. While I don't consider it genre-fiction, LOST plays heavily upon themes of pseudo-science (or lite SCI FI) and mystery to tell its stories.

The show's producer, J.J. Abrams is quoted as saying, "Mystery is the catalyst for imagination." A story that evokes the viewer's imagination, set in a universe where nearly anything is possible, creates a platform for discussion. Pair that with a firm knowledge of truth through classic literature, and you have a POWERFUL, important body of contemporary fiction. I think it's fitting to consider Einstein's quote, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." The viewer needn't know the truth to become a fan, but through watching, his curiosity and imagination will lead him to the truth in the story, and I believe, foster a hunger for more. So do the show's producers, apparently, as they have made available for the show's uberfans (such as I am) a LOST reading list, which suggests further READING.

The most amazing thing about the show, and the reason it ties so well into what I see happening with social networking and independent film in the future, is that my wife and I actually felt compelled to aggressively share this experience with people. We grew a small following, and had weekly get-togethers to watch and DISCUSS the show. And it's not just us. Across the world, the same thing is happening organically. Imagine that! Television that actually encourages networking, discussion, and THINKING! I'm convinced it's because the writers are avid readers.

After I finished my first film (which wasn't important or literary), I was armed with the belief that ANYONE could make a film by simply using what is already available and some creativity. I still believe that today, however, when I got into college (to pursue my liberal education) I found I no longer had the time to write, much less produce, another film. As you can imagine, this caused some distress: how was education supposed to help me make films, if I was able to do it before, but unable during and after college.

I was aware that networking was imperative to making films independently. Even when I found enthusiastic people, I also found they had little time outside work and school. I was sure that if we could just make a film, a grass-roots effort could make us all money. I knew a little about the concept of "viral marketing," and had the thought that it would be great if we could get paid for the promotional work we were doing for LOST naturally! It was at that time, that I was introduced to the concept of "commerce through community," and saw its potential. Then along came a phenomenal relational marketing opportunity, which proved that a great product would spread like wildfire if the customers (or fans) were allowed to earn compensation for the sharing they would naturally do anyway!

I see a connection between quality, literary fiction; endorsing a great, worthwhile product; and the natural formation of communities around both products that will INCREASE our national economy AND national intelligence quotient. The reality is that this is the Information Age way to operate the media, rather than government's subsidization of business failures and advertising's subsidization of entertainment failures. I think a consortium of leaders as passionate as I am about this, can duplicate these profound results.

Let us change the future.

So How Do We Discover Truth?

"The role of the media is to disseminate information, highlight important current events, and to essentially stand as a witness, an observer of cultural, political, community, and educational events. A healthy media provides a check on the government and increases the political astuteness of republican citizens."

- Stephen Palmer, The Center for Social Leadership

If Mr. Palmer's statement of the vast importance of media is correct, then does it not naturally follow that the information ought to be true? Does he leave any space for "moral flexibility?" Shouldn't the goal of media creators be to capture the truth as clearly as possible, be their craft documentary or fiction? Isn't the value of anything—product or story—hidden in its quality? So how is it that large, bureaucratic organizations seem to obscure truth in favor of "political correctness" or other similar nonsense, yet seem to profit greatly anyway?

At this point in human history, the playing field as been leveled like never before. Not only has the advancement of technology brought powerful tools into the hands of the people (not the least of which is digital media solutions for video and audio), but it has brought us a limitless marketplace in which to share our ideas. Such unfettered access to informational exchange should make us the wisest of all human generations...

And yet, we are overwhelmed with so much information, that we lack the ability to understand what, in fact, constitutes wisdom. The fact that we lack the capacity to discern good information from bad information leaves us accepting the information most easily accessible (mass media, or the media that caters to what we most want to hear). I believe it is fair to say, that what we want to hear and what is right and true, are not always the same thing. In fact, I would hazard the assertion that they are rarely the same thing.

So how do we discover truth? The first way is to study classics: great books that have already stood the test of time, and commentary books written by people who have mined them for principles and found greatness as a result. The second is to associate with great men and women, either directly through mentorship, or indirectly through video and audio recordings. The third is to experience life for yourself through direct contact with "the masses." This is especially true when you are pursuing some specific purpose.

The fourth (being what FITmedia aims to achieve), combines these other three in an objective manner. What I mean is this: if all media transfers information, and all information should ideally be true, then all media creators should want to know the truth in order to capture it. If the first three methods of discovery are all viable perspectives on truth, then all three are required for a complete picture of truth. It has been said that the best way to learn is to teach. Therefore, a collaborative attempt to capture real life in story form would naturally reveal truth.

The ultimate product, I believe, would be one of refined purity. One that would not only stand the test of time, but be an ideal specimen for people to emulate. And not only would it benefit culture for people to emulate it, but it would be accessible enough to the layman, that anyone could emulate it.

The secret lies not only in the form of an immersive series, or in the maturity of the written character development, but also in the ability for an unparalleled level of fan interaction. In essence, the wisest of the viewers would be able to rise to the level of creator.

Now how's that for a slice of fried gold?

Spirit of Consumerism

I've been studying a lot of media lately, and I came to the realization that the prevailing force in media (which shapes our world) is an attitude or "spirit" of consumerism. Of course, that's not really an astounding observation on the first pass. We have to look deeper to find the problem.

I think we're all aware that media needs revenue to create an output, as with any legitimate business. Premium channels charge an up front fee to accomplish this, but when companies want to decrease or eliminate the up front costs to customers, they connect the media with products. It's a genius idea, but I believe it is broken.

I return your attention to the spirit of consumerism. Interestingly, wiktionary.org defines "consumerism" in three very different ways:

1. A policy of protecting and informing consumers through honesty in advertising and packaging, improved safety standards, etc.

2. A materialistic attachment to possessions.

3. An economic theory that increased consumption is beneficial to a nation's economy in the long run.

I believe, though I've not yet done extensive research, that the operating assumptions of mainstream media are more heavily based upon the last one, and as a result, create programming to develop communities of people who are of the second persuasion (ie: materialistic). This is what I mean by a "spirit of consumerism." It is not official policy, it is not necessarily discussed, it just grows naturally out of the mindset this theory creates.

What if this theory is wrong? What if consumption is, by itself, a reduction and not growth? Now, obviously, consumption and production go hand-in-hand, but isn't the net goal production? Is that not growth? Consumers are important, for without them, the results of production would be without value. But just as production with no end consumer amounts to waste, consumption with no end production leads to deficit. So, what I am saying is that there needs to be a drive not for consumers, but producers. Producers will naturally consume as they proceed to build growth.

This is all very abstract, and what is the point? The point is, that modern media violates the first definition of consumerism because it creates an environment where appearance (of person or product) is more important than inner value. We are encouraged to be superficial, letting rot our core values through lack of use. Products compete for shiniest packaging, not greatest value.

Ultimately, a smarter consumer is the beginning of fixing the cycle, but this can scarcely be achieved by itself. By definition a producer is a smarter consumer because, to make a profit, he must refine his knowledge of economics (he must understand the real value of what he's buying).

The high aim of commercial programming is "viral marketing," which I will not discuss deeply here. Basically, it would be ideal for advertisers and media creators that the consumers would not only buy the products, but also go out and share the products with others. What they want is free residual marketing.

If they paid the consumers a share of what they pay the advertisers, would that not solve all the problems?