The Creative Cat

There are two kinds of people in the world: producers and consumers. A consumer is the end of the productive chain, a producer is any other link in that chain—one which passes on more value to the next link, rather than less or none. It is not the purpose of this post to define these any further, for more on this subject refer to "The Producer's Mind."

There are also two kinds of producers: creators and performers.  Creators originate and innovate goods, services, and even business models. Performers make this happen, and get it into the hands of the end consumers. Creators develop and manufacture, while performers market and distribute.In the past, I've also referred to these as "developers" and "promoters," respectively. I think that the use of the words "creator" and "performer" are more general and all-inclusive.

That being said, I acknowledge that there are exceptions to any general rule. In a previous post on the subject, I discussed performers in a more technical role, and I fear, a less dignified role. I do very much respect those who perform, we need them. Without them we would have nothing, but as I also said, their art is dependent upon the creators' art.

The general form of a performer is anyone who actively does...anything. To the extent that they qualify as producers, people who work for a company are performers of that company's business system. An actor is a performer who does a performance which was prewritten by a creator. Those who work as independent marketers or distributors, perform the duty of spreading the ideas and products of the creators. The one thing they lack is a significant, original idea.

It is the defining purpose of a creator to create...something. Most of the time, a novice creator must serve as his own performer. An amateur filmmaker, would likely perform the duties of director and cameraman as well. Musicians are most revered when they create what they perform. "Pop" stars who perform songs that were written for them are scorned by more "serious" musicians and music appreciators, while those who created the songs go largely unknown—to the general populace, anyway. Though, strangely, "cover" songs, jazz performances, and orchestras performing classical music are not scorned in this way.

Let me sum this up with an analogy borrowed from a world-class performer in the field of network marketing. He said chasing one's dreams is like a dog chasing a squirrel—minus the squirrel. He's crazily zigging and zagging, to and fro. He doesn't really have a plan, just a goal and the will to make it up as he goes along.

I submit that being a creator is like a cat, who is watching the dog chase the squirrel—minus the squirrel. He's smart enough to know that the dog is chasing something, but reserved enough to know that he doesn't want to do what the dog is doing. So he watches, and waits, and plans. Then, when the timing is right, he pounces. He may more may not have success. The risk is that the cat cannot course correct as much as the dog can, it's not a bad system, just a different approach.

FEATURED MEDIA: Adaptation - A brilliant work by Charlie Kaufman, this is the story of Charlie Kaufman who is assigned the task of adapting a book, The Orchid Thief, into a screenplay. Not entirely interested in the subject matter, Charlie performs the job his boss gave him, but his creative spirit takes over as he writes himself into the story.

Break the Machine

"Government reinforces the class system by the way it runs public education, and big business supports it through the investment legal code." - Oliver DeMille

I recommend that anyone interested in making a difference check out the blog at TheSocialLeader.com. It is packed with great nuggets (like the above quote) and phenomenally well-thought out essays about America's current social problems and how to solve them! Oliver DeMille is the founder of George Wythe College, author of several books, and a proponent of teaching through classics—what he calls a "Thomas Jefferson Education."

Some time ago, I posted a mid-read review of DeMille's book of the same title (featured on the left). I stand by my opinion having read it fully now and several other things he has written. It is very important that we bring back the spirit of independence that made this country great. Too many of us are dependent on the large system of big government and big business (collectively: "the machine") to solve problems that are really ours to solve.

When I was in school, I was part of an organization that fostered creative thinking through a creative competition. It's the only thing of its kind I've ever seen. Most public schools are proud of their football and baseball teams, and many have formidable band competitions and debate clubs, but no public school in itself fosters creation outside of menial "art" classes (which are mostly feel-good skater classes, in my experience).

What I propose is that we host a similar competition. Small groups of self-motivated and creative people would collaborate on the creation of short films (and possibly other media) through which they would share their views on truth. Several social "problems" would be issued to these groups, which would be guided by a coach to bring out their most innovative thoughts with respect to solving the problem within realistic constraints.

The top award winners would progress through several levels, at the top of which the best of the best would be partnered with phenomenal business and philanthropic organizations who are seeking an innovative market base. Our organizational center would then be only concerned with holding the line on freedom, integrity, and truth—quickly disassociation with those organizations that seek to do harm.

Individuals have limitless potential, but often fail to see it because they are afraid of (or fail to see the importance of) other people in the quest for significance. Voluntary teamwork is imperative to breaking the machine. Individuals must choose to work together for ourselves if we are to loosen the grip of insitutions that demand we work together for them.

FEATURED MEDIA: A Thomas Jefferson Education - A liberating book about self-education.

"LOST: Ab Aeterno"

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.


"Ab Aeterno"

Bravo! This is without a doubt the most important episode of LOST so far, which in my book, makes it the most important hour of television ever. If there were any doubts as to the philosophical or literary value of this series, there are no longer. This one episode encapsulated the show's entire core mythology into a microcosm—not only of the show's central struggle—but also of the deepest struggle of man.

In the universe of the show, the Island is a real place (despite Richard's frustrated assertion that they are all dead and in Hell), but it symbolically represents a sort of Purgatory in its function. The people who are brought to the Island are not there to be punished, but to be tested. Jacob insists that the people who he brings there get a clean slate, a chance to start over. This is not an intervention like an absolution, which forgives sin, but a chance to turn from one's wicked ways without the influence of social pressures keeping him in sin.

Jacob believes that people have free will, and should not be forced to do what is right. In this case, "free will" means the freedom to choose to sin or not to sin. To work as Jacob believes it will, this freedom demands first the desire to do good, then the ability to know the difference between good and evil. By contrast, the Man in Black believes it is in the very nature of man to sin, and that to allow him free will is to hasten his corruption. He therefore seeks to destroy the people that come to Island, with the notable exception of those who he can manipulate into killing Jacob.

The interesting thing about this dichotomy, as Richard points out, is that if Jacob refuses to intervene then the Man in Black will. Jacob's absence on the playing field means that the Man in Black is free to cloud the distinction between good and evil (no pun intended), which he does to Richard when he says that Jacob as the devil. He uses Jacob's own philosophy of free will to paint him as a monster who brings people to their death, when the reality is that the Man in Black is largely responsible for their deaths.

As for the desire to do good: traditionally, doing good (or at least being good) is connected with going to Heaven (and hence not going to Hell). Going to Heaven is full of rewards, such as the reunion with loved ones, and is therefore the motivation to do whatever one's belief system requires (in short, doing good). Richard's challenge was that, while he had no malice in his heart, he accidentally killed a man while trying to save his dying wife. His religion (apparently Catholicism) gave him no options to go to Heaven, because he could not be absolved of murder. Therefore, even though he was not evil, he lacked the motivation to do good, and was susceptible to evil's influence.

Jacob promised him the only escape from Hell that was available to him when he made Richard immortal. After Jacob's death, Richard struggled with understanding his purpose. In this episode, he decides to seek out the Man in Black, and take the offer he had given so many years ago. The Man in Black had given Richard the hope that his wife was taken by the devil (Jacob). Whatever Richard had believed about Jacob seemed to vanish with his death, and he ran back to the very place where the Man in Black made his promise. It was there, that the ghost of his wife (communicating through Hurley), gave him a new purpose.

So it is ultimately his true love which is his proverbial "north star." Symbolically, this is genius! Amid all the fiction that puts the pursuit of the "golden haired woman" as the purpose of a man's life, LOST defies convention with truth. A man's wife is his soulmate, his helper, his guide—she is not his purpose, but his partner in fulfilling it. This episode is the answer for all the ambiguity between good and evil throughout this series. All the power and magic comes from the characters' respective purposes and true loves. After all, these are the things that are eternal.

FEATURED MEDIA: Preorder the Final Season!

Education, Law, and People

[Reposted from CTIF.blogspot.com]

Law is only necessary to the degree that education is ineffective. The goal of a civil society is to equip people to govern themselves; self-control is more effective than state-control. But don't get me wrong, I would never advocate the immediate abolition of the legal system. Simply and humbly put, written laws are the awkward mitten-hands that point out the borders between right and wrong. Because human interaction is so complicated and full of nuance, we do not possess effective enough language to define the boundaries for every action that borders on criminal infraction. Definite laws are necessarily only a guide, though hopefully they err on the side of freedom. Like any rigid machine, laws need human intelligence to manage the minute details and produce a quality result.

Human intelligence is developed through education. For our purposes, let us consider education in its two most general forms: science and art. Classically speaking, "science" is any technical knowledge (like facts and figures), while "art" involves a more general understanding of application, especially with regard to people. Law is a science, while self-control is an art.

I think it is fair to say that education involves a transfer of information from a given source to a student's mind. If it is, then I believe it is also fair to think of all informational sources as potential education sources. Many of us think of education as simply the textbooks and lectures of formal schooling. And while that media effectively teaches science, it is by its very nature too rigid to teach art. However, I submit that all media transfers some information, and therefore, also some form of education.

Therein lies an important sub-point: certain media (especially image-based media) passively informs its audience. The goal of advertising media, for example, is to instill a want in the viewer. This is accomplished by "educating" the viewer about a set of circumstances which may not represent the truth. I encourage you to consider the passive education you may be receiving.

The real question here is whether or not our culture is learning (from whatever source) the information necessary for each individual to make effective moral and ethical choices with respect to his or her role in the larger picture. A balance between science and art is necessary for total perspective. The degree to which we are over-educated in science is the degree to which we become culturally inflexible, and the degree to which we are overeducated in art is the degree to which we lack an understanding of absolutes. The rigid use of laws, either to define what we all should accept or to reign in those ideas that are outside what we ought to accept, necessarily limits the freedom of the individual.

To return to the thesis of this article, the ability of the individual to control his own ethics (to find his fit) determines his ability to live in accordance with natural laws of human civilization. The degree to which each person is able to this, is the degree to which law would be rendered unnecessary. It is information about the bigger picture that determines a person's fit, and therefore, his reason to want to live in accordance with natural laws.

It is classic literature that studies these nuances; this information. The philosophers, entrepreneurs, and statesmen that wrote these works, wrote them from the trenches of cultural warfare, not from the comfortable halls of idealistic scholarship. These works represent first-hand experience with the subject matter: people. People--those wonderful, emotional creatures that purposefully defy convention and definition. People--the characters that fill the stages and silver screens of real life. People--the constant flaw in any plan, the exception to every rule, and the enduring force of change and balance on Earth.

For information to flow out of the Consortium and represent first-hand experience, we have to work with people. The process of building the Consortium and inspiring our people to read, discuss, write, and apply will serve as the very process of liberally educating each member of our community. A rising tide raises all ships, and this education process will constantly improve our media output to the point that our momentum will be unstoppable.

What makes a classic is it's level of truth and wisdom. Truth and wisdom govern the individual who understands them. A society of individuals who govern themselves do not need a cumbersome, expensive central bureaucracy. This society will be free.

FEATURED MEDIA: A Thomas Jefferson Education - A phenomenal book outlining the need for an increase in classic liberal arts education. This sort of education, which teaches the student the deeper connections of life, is the sort of education that made the Founding Fathers of America. Our education system today is broken, and it is up the independent individual to set things right.

Fine Wine

"If you're too big to follow, you're too small to lead." - Orrin Woodward

Many people are turned off by the very thought of "following" anyone. Even so, we follow people on Twitter, we follow the news, we follow the favorite sports team, etc. To follow does not mean to do so blindly. The question is not whether you follow, you do. The question is, do you follow with eyes open? If you follow blindly, you'll never gain the wisdom needed to lead when your time comes. On the other hand, if you ignore what everyone else is doing, you might as well be blindly following the blind.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

Education is like a fine wine. Most people think of drinking anything as a one-step process, but in to a wine aficionado, it is at least a three-step process—outside of pouring it! I will admit, I am not personally an expert on wines, thought I understand the concept. Upon receiving a glass of wine, the natural motion is to circle the liquid in the glass and smell its bouquet. That's the first step. Secondly, the taster would draw the wine into his mouth, and purposefully taste its flavor. Then, and only then, does the taster move to the next step of either swallowing it (accepting it) or spitting it out.

In wine, this last step is generally predetermined by the purpose of the tasting. Is the taster experiencing a single glass of wine for personal satisfaction, or sampling a variety of different wines in order to make a selection. A liberally educated person drinks deep of great books and other exceptional media for the benefit of his mind. In doing so, he must be vigilant in his decision to accept or reject what is coming into his mind. Only with time are his mental "tastes" sophisticated enough that he can inspire others to follow him.

So if you never taste the fine wines of life, you can never lead others to their secrets.

Think Different

Do you remember Apple Computer? Likely, the answer is, of course! My first Mac was a beige box with a rainbow apple logo, a clunky CRT monitor, and a 1.2 GB hard drive. It was a great machine for page design, web design, and word processing; but not much else. Apple was suffering greatly at that time, and the question was whether or not it would even be around in a few short years. Looking back, I don't understand what I saw in that computer. But I DID see something, because I've been loyal ever since.

The company had a campaign with a simple message: "Think Different." The print ads featured great people, free-thinkers, and world changers of history. Eventually, the apparently excommunicated founder, Steve Jobs, returned to his seat as CEO of the company which was the catalyst for the realization of this long-running motto. Grammatical correctness aside, it was a profoundly simple statement that may well have shaped my thinking life, but certainly motivated me to work harder to do so.

More than a catchy marketing slogan, the company obviously took the philosophy to heart. It has been an almost non-stop, ahead-of-the-curve innovation machine since the release of the original iMac. They feature a whole line of now-trite but catchy "i" products. I'm told it stands for "internet," but it could easily stand for "innovation." One simple letter defined an entire technophile culture—reinventing digital communication from music and movies to business and social networking. From the iPod to the iPhone, and now the iPad, Apple has even changed the way we use technology. Not only have they innovated products, but they innovated culture.

The point of all this is to ask: what did I see in the future of a struggling company, whose product was almost as beige as their competitors'? Simply, I saw something different. Inside that beige box was a heart of gold (which, incidentally, is still ticking 15+ years later). It was just easy to use, without trying to smother me with user-friendliness, and yet it was extremely reliable—with never any viruses or fatal system errors that required technical support. In short, it isn't pretty now, but it still works.

The seeds of that simple greatness have compounded for Apple to form the authority on innovation that they now are: both technology and culture leaders. How not, with a statement like this:

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

How's that for Thinking Different?

FEATURED MEDIA: The Magic of Thinking Big - A tried and true manual to help you expand your thinking. Whatever you can envision is possible, it merely depends on the size of your thinking.

Third Side Philosophy

There are three sides to every coin.

Think about it. If you are confused, that's okay. That is why so many problems arise in society today. It is very easy to get drawn into either/or debates when nothing is ever that black and white. Give up? The third side of the coin is the edge of the coin. It may not enter your mind because it is seemingly insignificant, but it is an alternative to heads or tails.

Third side philosophy is not any one specific philosophy, as far as I'm concerned, but an open-minded attitude toward all political and philosophical thought. The lack of such open-mindedness is most evident (but by no means exclusive to or 100% defining of) partisan politics and well-established big business. Both of these represent big institutions with strong central powers which have been doing what they are doing for far longer than current innovations have been around. That is to say, the game is changing but the players are not.

The reason is because a coin mostly lands on heads or tails. So often, in fact, that any other occurrence is likely man made and not a matter of chance. This is a telling analogy of current societal issues. First, most people leave these large matters up to chance (or at least feel they have little control over them). Second, nearly all change is man made. Major societal and technological shifts are the product of a few people working hard to stand that coin on its edge. Naturally, that requires balance. It also requires a different approach than a standard flip.

For as often as corporation mavens are cited as saying "think outside the box," their ability to actually do so is very limited. Inherently, big institutions are the box. Anything outside that box is actually a threat to the comfortable bureaucrats at the top and the security-minded employees in the middle and toward the bottom. The only way to fix the problems with society is ask (and genuinely seek to answer) dangerous questions.

Media, of course, is a linchpin in this problem. It can either agree with the status quo (the populists' approach), or take a risk in asking the dangerous questions (the truthful approach). If these questions are asked consistently, there will most certainly be a measure of creative destruction, which will wain with time as the truthful form of media is revealed. However, once media creators find their fit, the reinvention of business and political structure will gain an exponential pace.

So it is up to free-thinking individuals to develop media that breaks the stranglehold of reactionary thought and chance-based thought. Those who are proactive, must encourage others to be proactive as well, and equip them with the tools necessary to do so.

Make no mistake: Standing the coin on its edge is a game changer.

FEATURED MEDIA: Leadership and Self-Deception - An excellent book about changing the way people think. A must read for anyone who wants to think different or help other to do so.