The FITmedia Difference

Gone are the days of the large institution. Yet, it still continues to go through its once productive motions, buying up people's lives where it can, producing nothing but real-life zombies (no pun intended). These "cards" can be traded or terminated at the will of the mother institution, having no real freedom but the choice of reaction to the institution's cannibalistic actions. This choice of reaction is subject to the individual's attitude, which is in large part influenced by his intellectual diet, or lack thereof. Therefore, a diet of liberating and enlightening media would produce positive responses even to negative stimuli. And the total exclusion of limiting and disheartening media would change the zombie-esque "reactive" mentality into a spiritually vibrant "proactive" mentality.

Media is the source of many, if not all, of our cultural "instincts." The Media is, in itself, a large institution. As such, it is a friend and promoter of other large institutions by proxy. While it may glad-handle small business concerns in an effort to appear gregarious with the little guy, its high-aim is always to consolidate power and grow as a whole, rather than to enable its constituent cells to grow individually and then be dependent upon their donation of power to the central agency. Big institutional propaganda flows out to the masses, its effect is one which subsidizes the thought that big institutions are inherently good, despite the growing feeling that they have become largely dishonest.

In his book, The Coming Aristocracy, Oliver DeMille (Liberal Arts educator and founder of George Wythe College) discusses the concept of "mini factories." He defines it this way: "A mini-factory is anything someone does—alone or with partners or a team—that accomplishes what has historically (meaning the last 150 years of modernism) been done en masse or by big institutions." It is a process of individuals operating independently and with initiative because they care more and perform better for themselves and their families/communities than for a large, impersonal institution. These individuals and small groups can then share best practices through free-association.

At FITmedia, we want to enable mini-factories by hosting this free-association. As an institution, we will grow only as large as is necessary to effectively improve the whole, but never through controlling the whole. Because we believe in free-association and the sharing of best practices, we are a learning organization, seeking as much to understand the needs of the media creators and marketers we represent as to help them understand why certain practices work better than others to improve their respective productivity.

The idea is that the very best products and services are always created by those who are truly independents. Free people always follow their passions, because that is what they are made to do. It is not so much the path of least resistance, as it is the path of greatest motivation. The heights to which a person takes his passion is limited only by the weakness in his structure of action. This weakness is only as great as his ignorance of the truth. To facilitate this trend, FITmedia has made its front line the development of Truth in Fiction, which intends to institute a viral spread of entertainment media which also challenges people to improve themselves—their interest being invested in the speed of this spread.

Individual mini-factory media projects would seek their own funding and sponsorship from financiers and marketers who must of necessity agree with the mini-factory trend. There would be no interest for large organizations to fund these media projects unless they agreed with the truth contained therein. If this is so, then the organization is likely not dishonest.

The consortium of independents created through this process would have an interest in the continued trade of their resources as a part of this community. Loyalty would only be sustained to the degree that the whole consortium (or at least units of a certain size) continue to operate with a spirit of freedom, integrity, and truth.

That is the FITmedia difference.

FEATURED MEDIA: The Coming Aristocracy by Oliver DeMille. An easy to read, but still informatively dense, book about the rising powers of the elites in the upper class. DeMille succinctly lays out how the conflict is not "liberal" vs. "conservative," but independent vs. aristocratic. A must read for any free-thinker and a great place to start if you don't think you are.

Wait for the Harvest

In continuation of my previous post about starving artists, I want to discuss an old-fashioned concept. One which I think is seeing a resurgence in the information age: waiting for the harvest. In the agricultural age, no one expected to get paid at the end of the week. Farmers had to prepare the field, plant the seeds, pull the weeds, and otherwise care for the growing plants until the plants themselves were mature enough to put out a healthy crop. Only then could the crop be harvested, sorted, and sold. It was then that the farmer's hard work paid off.

The internet has given us so many ways to communicate and an enormous crowd with which to communicate. Social networking sites give the average internet user the potential power to utilize a compounding effect (or "viral" spread) of virtually any piece of information or idea. Digital tools have have placed photography and film squarely within reach of any artist so long as he has a good idea and a desire to pursue it. A low investment, with an unlimited amount of compounding potential is available to those who are patient enough to wait for the harvest.

What is stopping the average person from living his dreams is the desire for a "secure" paycheck. Most people have a short-term vision and cannot see past the next round of bills, if even that long. Partially this the media's fault for selling us on short-term solutions, but it is also our own fault for demanding those solutions in the first place. It is also in part the fault of higher education, whose purpose has become more specialized and vocational, than liberal and philosophical. That being said, it is our own dollars spent in ignorance that perpetuate this trend.

It is true that we need specialists and people with high technical abilities, but the demand for those people has been greatly exaggerated of late. The reality is that we know much of what there is to know about manufacturing, healthcare, and the politics of the legal system, so there is little growth in these industries. Until a change is made that either revolutionizes manufacturing, prevents the baby-boomers from dying, or vastly expands regulations that need untangling; the need for the classic high-paying positions of engineers, doctors, nurses, and lawyers will continue to decline while the number of potential candidates rises. If you're the best of the best, good for you! You've probably found your calling, but the rest of us may need to sow some seeds and wait for the harvest.

The hard work of your art, whether it's fine art or the art of persuasion, is giving without receiving. At least, not at first. As I said, one needs to plant seeds if there is to be a harvest. I am reminded of the parable of the sower who went into his field sowing seeds. Some fell where they were exposed and eaten by birds. Others fell where it was rocky and grew not the roots to withstand the sun. Still others fell among weeds and were choked out. Yet some did live and flourish, having fallen on good soil. Trial and error is a necessary part of creating art. The essence of what makes it compelling is the struggles and experience behind it.

Whatever is your purpose, whatever is your art, this process is not really hard if it is what you do. Only your passion will carry you through the trials necessary to produce the final product, and only a final product fired in the kiln of these trials is worthy of a bountiful harvest. Make no mistake, this is an unstoppable art.

FEATURED MEDIA: The Pursuit of Happyness - The compelling true story of Chris Gardner, who finds himself homeless with his young son as the result of a bad investment. Chris catches the dream of being a successful stockbroker, and pursues an non-paying internship despite his difficult situation. He demonstrates extreme perseverance, and goes on to get his harvest.

"LOST: Lighthouse"

DISCLAIMER: In a previous post, I discussed the importance of ABC's "LOST." Therefore, I am beginning a series which briefly explores thoughts on the show with respect to FITmedia and Truth in Fiction. Being as the posts are philosophical in nature, I will try to keep story spoilers to a minimum. However, because many of the philosophical pillars are tied to critical events, it is impossible to discuss without some spoilers. For those of you not following the show, I hope that these posts will be worthwhile on their own merit, and should they inspire you to watch the show, that they will not have ruined the plot for you. You have been warned.

"Lighthouse"

Perhaps, I'm just not seeing it this week, but I feel like this episode is rather devoid of philosophical discussion. It's not that I would call it a bad episode, but it feels more like the span of a bridge which is farthest from its supports. It is interesting to note that a friend of mine, who I regularly go over the episodes with, felt this was the worst episode of the season so far. For us to share a similar feeling about an episode which seems to lack depth, is evidence that it lacks "Truth in Fiction." There is great content, revealing several useful connections, but it does not ask deep questions or give any answers which we did not already suspect. The most surprising element was learning that Jack has a son, David, in the flash-sideways timeline.

Through this relationship, we learn something deeper about Jack's relationship with his father. Jack was apparently terrified of his father, who had at least once told him "you just don't have what it takes" ("White Rabbit"). Despite David's distant, teenager-like attitude, Jack is persistent in his attempt to communicate. He says he just wants to be a part of David's life. It turns out that David is afraid for his dad to see him fail. Jack admits his love for his son, saying he can never fail in his eyes. Simply getting the issue out in the open, despite difficult emotions, has a healing effect.

This resolution to the flash-sideways seems to be in keeping with the sense that conflicts are quickly righted in the absence of the Island's influence. Which therefore furthers, in my mind, a growing sense that the Island is somehow malevolent. Perhaps the Man in Black does not recognize the Island as in need of protection because it is not the Island that Jacob and his followers are protecting from the outside world, but the outside world that they are protecting from the Island. Then again, if Jacob was supposed to be protecting the outside world, he either wasn't doing a very good job, was losing to the Man in Black, or was sacrificing his own "Queen" for a checkmate.

All the same, we lack enough solid information about the Island's original inhabitants to examine the lighthouse, which Jack and Hurley visit after another "uncharacteristic" step into leadership by Hurley. It appears that Jacob has been using it to watch certain people. We again see the names of the "candidates," but learn no more of their significance. Jack's lack of emotional intelligence once again closes doors by which we could have learned something. And Hurley is left bewildered in the presence of Jacob, who seems to have expected this chain of events to unfold.

The only significance I can draw from these events presently are the larger themes of leadership and destiny. Jacob tells Hurley that some people can just be told what needs to be done—demonstrating that Hurley is both a good leader (he was effective) and a good follower (he did what he was told on faith)—while he says other need to "stare out at the ocean for a while," referring to his understanding that no one can tell Jack what to do, he must find it on his own. This hearkens back to Locke's advice that "a leader can't lead, unless he knows where he's going." ("White Rabbit")

We also visit Claire's camp, which is eerily reminiscent of a cross between Rousseau's beach camp in "Dead is Dead" and her underground hideout in "Solitary." She helps Jin by sewing up his injuries caused by a bear-trap she set (also reminiscent of Rousseau). She asks Jin if he is still her friend with a subtly ominous air, as if treatment of his wounds (and possibly his life) depend on the correct answer.

In addition to Jin, she is holding one of the Others captive, who she plans to torture in order to gain information about the whereabouts of her son, Aaron. In what I can only conclude is a contrast between good and evil, Jin emphatically tells Claire that Kate took Aaron off the Island, temporarily saving her captive's life. Claire then kills the captive, seemingly out of spite. There is a stark difference between the good-natured flash-sideways Claire from "What Kate Does" (see blog post) and this apparent demon-fellow, whose actions seem to indicate the nature of her friend, the Man in Black.

So the battle lines seem to be between a dark-humored (if not wholly evil) Man in Black, who is "claiming" certain pieces on a cosmic chess board, with no apparent concern for life or death; and a solemn but confident Jacob, whose apparent manipulation of "candidates" has cost many lives on the path to some greater purpose. The question is, who is really the evil one? Does Jacob's purpose justify the loss of lives? If not, then is the Man in Black—and not Jacob—ultimately responsible for the deaths?

FEATURED MEDIA: Pre-order Season 6 of LOST!

Monetize the Starving Artist

I've found, through personal experience, that it is considerably difficult to balance the need to express one's art with the need to sustain oneself financially. Because one's art is entangled with one's sense of purpose, the artist can fall into the trap of self-satisfaction and the sacrifice of all else. In other words, it is easier to relegate one's art to the realm of the hobby and spend only a minimal amount of time bringing in a salary. This is, of course, the old concept of the "starving artist."

Since this type of person is typically not uneducated, they are not trapped in low-income jobs due to lack of ability, but lack of applicable desire. They are independent in spirit, and would rather not exhaust their mental and physical faculties on anything but their art. For the same reason, they do not want to subject their independent expression to the arbitrary restrictions of a boss, who generally has other motives than the perfection of his constituent's art.

And so, there is an army of "unproductive" geniuses, who are not so much doing the wrong thing, as doing it the wrong way. The fundamental problem is the assumption that one has to do what he does for someone in order to receive compensation, or if he wants to avoid the consent of a third-party, he must do something else for someone. That "something else" will naturally never get the artist's best efforts, which are saved for the art—or, as in the former event, his best efforts are not appreciated.

Most people are stuck in an employee-mentality, which means they look to one or two sources for their income. Even a self-employed person or freelancer can fall into a rut for their income; settling into working with one or two big contractors. Especially if their job is not their passion, this is the easier route. Ultimately, this system prevents a person from doing what they love to do and being adequately compensated for their subsequent skill in that area.

The concept they are unaware of is the idea of "monetizing" their art, or more liberating, monetizing their lives. To put it simply, good art has a way of attracting and retaining a crowd simply by virtue of its quality. So too, does the artist creating the art. An artist who demonstrates mastery in art, is a person who has achieved some level of mastery over his life. Therefore, his opinion about the value of things matters. If he recommends a movie or a book, that means it's worth seeing or reading. If he uses a product, it is likely to be world class.

Traditional media and marketing know this, but have abused this with the impersonal hand of mass communication technology. The reality is, we all feel more comfortable buying something from someone we can know and trust. What I speak of is not sales, but endorsements. Most people only think this is open to the Olympic Gold Medalists and other athletic heroes, but that's not true. Look at any website that has something for sale, many have commission opportunities for independent individuals who can gather a loyal crowd. Take the Amazon Associates program, which I use.

Never fear, it may take time, but the degree to which your art grows in quality is the degree to which you gather followers, especially with today's social networking opportunities. The degree to which you gather followers of your high art is the degree to which your endorsements of other people's art is valuable to them.

FEATURED MEDIA: "(500) Days of Summer" - A young man who dreams of being an architect, is trapped in a dead-end job as an illustrator for a greeting card company. At his job, he meets a girl named Summer, who proves to be a sort of muse. As the movie says, this is not a love story.

Emotional Attachment

Recently my son destroyed one of his toys. I highlight the word "destroyed" because that is not really what happened, but that is how my brain described it. What he did was tear most of the decals off a toy car parking deck. Its basic functions still remained in tact, and no plastic was bent or broken. What was really destroyed was my efforts. See, I kept him at bay on Christmas while I painstakingly put the sticker on. So for him to remove them was a bit of an emotional injury for me.

Which brings me to my topic: "emotional attachment" of this kind is unhealthy and ought to be exercised from a free thinking person's mind. This isn't to say that emotions are not valid, but a good rule of thumb would be that emotions are for people, not things. Two exceptions of polar opposites would be a passion for the protection of an important historical artifact, or the desensitization of prison guards toward the pleas of convicted criminals. However, generally speaking emotional involvement with the inanimate is a handicap.

Take the movie, Lars and the Real Girl, for example. I highly recommend this film to anyone interesting in having their perspectives challenged. It is not to say that this is a difficult film to watch, its very enjoyable, but it is to say that it goes down a very unexpected path.

Lars Lindstrom is, to a painful degree, very shy. He has almost no social life outside of this brother and sister-in-law, who's garage he lives in. So they are surprised to find he has met the girl of his dreams. However, to this social hermit, the "girl of his dreams" turns out to be a sex doll he ordered on the internet named Bianca.

Here's where the story heads down the road less travelled. Lars is not interested in sex, but a deep, meaningful relationship. Since he doesn't know how to interact with real girls, it seems his only option is to invent one. Because the people of his small town care for him, they decide to play along. The local doctor is also a psychiatrist, and pretends that Bianca has a rare condition that must be treated regularly. During this time, she is able to talk to Lars about his strange attachment.

I won't go any further into the story except to say that it is a truly heartwarming story of healing—one that is distinctive and edgy enough not to be sappy. For me, it provoked a lot of thought about how we assign a certain spirit to inanimate objects, as well as pets, which they really don't possess. Usually, this is a harmless practice from childhood imagination, which can be beneficial, as it was for Lars. Though such attachments can be abused.

To borrow the plot of this movie for analogy's sake, what if the doctor had insisted that Bianca needed a certain expensive prescription (one that paid a high commission). Or what if a local car salesman used Bianca's condition to sell Lars a new car? What if Lars decided Bianca needed a credit card so she could get the high-fashion she needed?

This is precisely the sort of thing that unscrupulous advertisers seek to do: tap your emotional weak spots in order to push on you a product which you really don't need. FITmedia seeks to create writers, producers, and distributors who understand that the only products that should sponsor true art are truly artful products. Whether it be scientifically advanced food products, or high-quality literary entertainment.

FEATURED MEDIA: "Lars and the Real Girl" - The story of a meaningful relationship with a sex doll.

Value and War

In the spirit of free thought, I want to discuss a controversial subject. Many times, certain subjects which require mature examination do not get the analysis they deserve. As a society, we tend to grab ahold of generalized judgments in lieu of thinking for ourselves, especially were much thought has already been done. René Decartes is said to have written his treatise on human emotions "as if no one had written on these matters before." However, it is vital to the free thinking man or woman to examine difficult ethical dilemmas from an objective standpoint, even if a heart-felt response ultimately is deemed proper.

It came to me to ask the question, what is wrong with war profiteering? Actually, the term "war profiteering" is by definition, wrong. The phrase embodies the concept of abusing power as the result of limited commodities and limited competition over who is providing those commodities. In effect, it constitutes theft from an already overwrought people. That is why it is wrong.

However, several things get conveniently labeled "war profiteering" which may not be wrong. Basically, free nations produce goods through private enterprise. This means that the munitions, rations, clothing, and other supplies are often manufactured privately and sold to the military at a profit. This is not, inherently, "war profiteering." It is merely profit made in a time of war. If a nation (or alliance of nations) is fighting for freedom against foreign oppressors such as Nazi Germany in WWII, then it makes little sense for any nation to strip its own citizens of business freedoms. Those entrepreneurs have more at stake than most if the freedom of the nation disappears—be it from without or within.

What does create a problem is when a dishonest third-party shows up on the scene to take advantage of the situation. As with Oskar Schindler in "Schindler's List." Schindler acquires an enamelware factory in Poland after the German invasion, staffing it with Jewish workers, who represent free labor. Based on a true story, he made a lot of profit on the business, but ultimately began helping the Jewish people escape the death camps through employment at his shop. In a famous scene, Schindler lamented that he could have found more money to save more lives. The profits he extracted ultimately served the higher purpose of saving nearly 1200 lives.

We need not forget the power of the most horrific events to warm even the coldest heart. To assume that such profits never produce guilt even when guilt is deserved is to disregard the moveable heart of man. To be sure, one can avoid seeing the results of his work, but can anyone truly avoid knowing the results of his work? Is it possible at all to profit in ignorance of the end results? I think not.

FEATURED MEDIA
"Schindler's List" - The true story of a Nazi business man turned hero.

Media Vegetable

The partnership between media and marketing has led the unscrupulous purveyors to take unfair advantage of the consumer. With today's hectic lifestyle, shrinking incomes, and downsizing employment, it's no wonder that people want to "veg out." I mean, who wants to think after 5 o'clock? Most people's brains are spent—not on important, life-shaping matters—but on menial, repetitive tasks. These tasks do not stimulate new ideas, but merely tie up bandwidth in the brain.

So after getting chewed out for showing up 3 minutes late to a job you hate on a Monday morning, you make your way to your work station. Here you will be worked by your superiors like some sort of mechanical device—as a part of the machine you might be standing or sitting in front of. Perfection is expected, but speed is a priority. Criticism and irrational demands replace the real human contact of teamwork. Indeed, you have likely been chewed out for spending too much time "socializing."

So you go home to chores of one kind or another. Work doesn't stop because you go home. You're too stressed out about today or tomorrow or the next presentation to think about thirty years from now when today's habits compound to cause your death by heart disease. So you order a pizza, easy right? Of course you get diet soda with it, because somewhere [on a commercial] you heard that aspartame is healthier than sugar.

Then you plop down in front of the TV, physically, mentally, and spiritually exhausted. You watch what's easy to watch. Plot-driven, formulaic, escapist programming. Shows interlaced with car commercials, prescription drug ads, credit cards, and insurance—anything to make your life easier. And because you are emotionally vulnerable, and in no shape to think about what you're watching, you get suckered into buying.

All that said, you are not the victim, but an accomplice to your own destruction. Henry Ford said, "Thinking is the hardest job there is, that is why so few people engage in it." It's true, but it's still your responsibility. Who will protect your most valuable asset—your mind—if not you? What will protect your body and your life if not your mind? Certainly not the large organizations, most of whom are on a track that makes your day job harder (so they can cut costs), and your nightlife dumber (so they can sell you the fix).

So how about it? Ready to begin thinking through your intellectual diet, or are you going to die of cronic consumerism?