"Spiritual" Economy

Most adults in relatively free economic countries have a sixth sense about the value of money. The reason is less magical than it may at first appear. The closer a person is involved with the "making" of money (i.e.: generating value in trade for capital), the more they "feel" the worth of a unit of currency.

For example, if a person makes $10 an hour performing some skilled labor, then he understands $1 as being worth the strain of 6 minutes of work. Therefore, when a person is deciding to buy or not to buy, they are subconsciously considering whether it is worth the equivalent labor.

In this way, the value of goods is commonly understood throughout the world (despite varying currency rates). This is very important, but simply works by the same rules as conscious economic choices—insofar as no one is trying to abuse the customer's ignorance. However, value escapes its material bonds and grows exponentially when it is transfered into an act of charity.

When a person feels the strain each dollar represents, he naturally desires to keep it to himself. When he denies himself this gratification and instead sacrifices the dollar(s) to another person, then something magical happens. He hands over the money and transfers its value along with it, however, when he expects nothing in return, he is left with a duplicate of its value in his soul.

Furthermore, he is seen by others as a giver and is marked by value equivalent to the gift. This has a multiplying effect, because each person who appreciates the giving of the one gift attaches this value to the giver. Therefore, one $10 gift appreciated by ten people who heard about it makes the giver feel like he gave a $100 gift. So whatever high feeling the initial gift gave the giver, the spread of the story multiplies.

To top it off, when the receiver of a gift appreciates the gift, he is likely to return the favor whenever he can (in whatever form). The emotional impression made on him is likely to prompt a disproportionately large return. This, in turn, constitutes a gift—and the cycle compounds.

As abstract as this might sound, I have a real-life example. Several years ago, I was leaving my apartment on a mission to buy a pint of ice cream—about $4. Because it was a house divided into four apartments, there was only one other unit on the top floor besides mine. As I prepared to decent the stairs, I noticed a $10 bill lying on the floor.

I'll admit, my first thought was "free ice cream!" but I recovered myself. It didn't belong to me, so it must have belonged to my neighbor. I simply slipped it part way under the door, and went on my way—feeling pleased with myself.

To make a long story short, my neighbor found out that I had put it there, though I never learned for certain that it had belonged to her. Nevertheless, the dynamic between us noticeably shifted—particularly because she hadn't had much apparent experience with good-willed people in her life.

It is difficult to put a price on such "spiritual" qualities as good-will, but if one can equate money to the strain of acquiring it, then the ease that came over our neighborly contact was worth more than $1000. And really, it cost me nothing.

The Dystopian Machine

The following is a personal examination of dystopian concepts that I wrote as part of an attempt to understand the world of a story I am writing. I am certain to be somewhat mistaken in my observations, and therefore, this is to be taken as a topic for discussion, but not necessary an essay on asserted facts. Nevertheless, I hope my reasoning is structurally sound, and would appreciate any feedback by those more informed than I am.

The machine of society, and by extension its apparatus, has been created for the specific purpose of organizing society. The eternal argument is to whom ought go the benefits of such an organized society. The debate has such a wide range as to include "everyone" and "one top person."

The former ranges in another dimension from Socialism and Communism to Libertarianism and Anarchy. The latter does not range much in actual practice, but includes a variety of titles from "Emperor" to "Dictator." There are many things wrong with such extremes. By definition, Socialism and Communism keep people "down" in the name of equality, unfortunately, someone has to be the oppressor, and usually becomes a "Dictator." Libertarianism and Anarchy cast off any notion of oppression, but create such ignorant individualism as to allow the strongest to become an oppressor, or "Dictator."

Either way, extremes end up producing a two-class system based upon some kind of coercion. A person or small group of people who have "absolute power" tend to corner the market—as it were—on happiness as well. The masses, supposed to be "secure," seethe with frustration and jealousy at their inability to advance. As a result, the elites impose more force upon the "unruly" people while giving themselves more freedom from the people.

And so, the ultimate goal of those who seek to mechanize society is to create a taught system that responds instantaneously to the will of the pilot(s). In order for this to happen, such a system must be "bled" of all turbulence in the order of individual preferences. These preferences come in two varieties: one has an interest in the system as a whole (and is therefore a problem to the machine) and the other merely has an interest in one's self.

This second variety includes the only "individual rights" that such a system allows. These are on the order of physical freedoms (what one does with one's own body or with a consenting partner). Freedoms on the order of the mental (such as political transparency, freedom of movement—across boundaries, etc.) and freedoms on the order of the philosophical (which open questions about the justice of such a system) are eventually strictly prohibited.

When each person cares only about himself, he becomes a predictable mechanism. He can be manipulated with "carrot and stick" rewards, and need not falter due to relational or other human considerations. He can then be pushed, abused, and used up without any worry of someone coming to his aid—because he is alone by his own design. Furthermore, this is seen as his own fault, because anyone who looks as his situation sees only the physical considerations—never the underlying causes of his faulty thinking.

"Revenge of the Introvert"

I just read an interesting article in Psychology Today, entitled "Revenge of the Introvert." As often happens in the cycle of reading and thinking, this article did not so much inform me of anything I didn't already know or suspect, as it did give structure and terminology to an already developing idea. In short, it clarified and validated parts of my hypothesis on creators and performers.

As you may already know, personality types are universally divided into extraverts and introverts. I'll be brief, because the article explains this very well. Extraverts derive their energy from outside sources, and love crowds, noise, and excitement. Introverts derive their energy from internal sources, preferring one-on-one engagements, alone time, and quiet contemplation. What I call "creators" roughly aligns with the introverted personality types. The article points out that while extraverts (which would roughly align with "performers") seem more prevalent by nature, national studies suggest that it is actually a 50/50 split.

The success culture in the United States is extremely biased toward performance, or "the playing of a prescribed game." This entails some manner of competition between people or teams, and focuses heavily on sales and marketing. All-in-all this requires skills native predominantly to the extravert. This means that a great number of introverts are being forced or are forcing themselves into roles (particularly at work) that are "counter-dispositional." Either that, or they settle for mediocrity at work, keeping their passions as hobbies.

With the advent of so much information technology, I believe that a time is coming when marketing will lose its current value, and success culture will have to embrace the more introverted creators, who originate real value. Indeed, this is already beginning.

The reason is that as more and more people learn how to learn—about products, media content, political campaigns, etc.—from the internet and other sources, there will be a greater and greater skepticism toward someone "selling" something. Therefore, the creation of a truly valuable product will become more important, and will, through passive means, market itself through the recommendations of satisfied customers.

The difficulty, of course, is that creation is unpredictable. It is difficult to say when a breakthrough will occur. By contrast, marketing is a simple numbers game. One truly great product can be sold to literally billions of people, and is a simple matter of rapid exposure. The more exposure, the more people will learn, the more they learn, the more they buy.

In a global economy, where Sydney, Australia and Podunk, USA are in the same marketplace, the challenge is how to utilize the natural abilities of introverts to create without having too many products to effectively market. Given the 50/50 split, the ideal would suggest that there be one creator inventing and one performer marketing.

Certainly, this demands further exploration.

Willing to Change

You cannot course correct if you're not moving. So many people run up against unchangeable people who have seemingly unsolvable problems. We try to help by offering suggestions of what we did in our own lives, but the actions that brought us closer to success seem to be ineffectual in their lives.

This is particularly frustrating to people whose lives literally depend upon helping other make this change. Marketers and salespeople, lobbyists, counselors, activists, and evangelists alike make their living helping people to make a change. If we suppose these professionals are honest people representing an honest enterprise, then they are trying to help.

As the adage goes, one has to be "willing to change." This is true enough, but sometimes falls short of the total solution. A person can be self-deceived into thinking they want to change, but unconsciously undermine their own effort because they really don't want to. Even so, it is possible for a person to be willing to change, but not be able to change.

The reason is quite simply this: without a goal, dream, or vision that is vastly more desirable than the current set of circumstances, there is nothing to move toward. If there is nothing to move toward, there is no way to change your course. If a person is stuck in a rut of bad habits and bad thinking, the greater the rut the greater the need for a reason to overcome it.

A person can complain up one side and down the other about how terrible his life and the general state of things is, but without some clear picture of the better life he believes he can have, he will merely be swept to the grave on the conveyor belt of mediocrity. All the self-help books, therapy sessions, and liberal studies are just noise to a person who has no goal.

Help them discover their passion, then show (not tell) them how you can help them get it.

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.

Other People's Failures

Have you ever wondered why it's interesting to hear of other people's failures? Inside, we all know we should be ashamed of "rubbernecking" at the calamities that befall others. Nevertheless, we hold a morbid fascination for them. It's part of what makes us so wonderfully human.

As I see it, there are two main reasons we gravitate toward stories of failure.

The first, is that when other people fail, it removes a tension on ourselves to measure up. By their failures, they have lowered their standard. This is especially the case in a working or other competitive environment. The star performer at work gathers a lot of envious eyes. The greater the gap between him and his colleagues, the more they desire to see him fail.

The second—and more admirable—is because other people's failures show us what not to do. It is always better to learn from other people's failures rather than from one's own. In the case of the star performer, it is likely that a person hearing his story would recognize that he has a blind spot. This makes him more human, and more sympathetic. It also makes the person hearing the story more of a team player.

The first mode of thinking is influenced greatly by the trend, mentioned in my previous post, of re-feeding the masses what they want to hear. When media does this, it has the effect of dampening the success of an organization. The people who are inundated with their own narrow thoughts, naturally rebel against anything that falls outside of the perspective it affords. Star performers are all but pulled down by mediocre individuals who are cynical about anything "unheard of."

The second mode of thinking requires an ambitious spirit, and belongs to the abundance mentality. When a person believes that opportunities to create value abound, they applaud star performers for their efforts. When others fail, one who believes in abundance absorbs the lessons, then gives a hand up to the fallen comrade.

We're all in this life together. Most failures are the result of the actor stepping outside his rightful territory, and treading upon others'. Why do we allow media and other influences to crush us into a win-lose competitive mentality, when we can work as a team to create win-win?

Everyone is Wrong

At least, part of the time. To be a singular, linear being in an expansive universe is to have a limited perspective by which to understanding that universe. Necessarily, we must draw faulty conclusions. Furthermore, being limited by lifespan, we must act upon those faulty conclusions or else run out of time to act—because it is impossible to know everything.

This is not the cause of human suffering, but perhaps of frustration, and certainly of failures. However, when individuals and small organizations fail, those with the clearest vision of their stated purpose can merely pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and correct their mistakes. These types of learning experiences are invaluable to the success process—whatever your success looks like.

This is where media is important, with its ability to capture and share stories, ideas, and other information. The great tragedies of Shakespeare teach us about the consequences of running with our faults—not so that we can fear them, but so that we can examine possible course corrections before problems arise. Much media content today boasts similar examinations, though most people are no longer looking for food-for-thought.

The trend in media is to re-feed the masses what they already think. Mostly because it is the easiest way to make a quick buck. This is true whether one sells his own media content, or uses it to develop a large audience for paying advertisers. The consequence of this is mass-stagnation. When the greater portion of the populace is encouraged to steep in its own ignorance, it becomes increasingly difficult to make any real progress.

Such stagnation means that those under the influence of such re-fed thought are unable to think "outside the box." To them, the world is as it seems to be, and will be going in the direction it is going permanently. Once, there was a time that new things could be created, but now everything has been.

Of course, the people outside this mindset are in the minority. These few that are, know that what there is to be discovered is infinite in both breadth and depth, as well as complexity. However, with the vast majority thinking what they think and patting each other on the back for thinking it, new information is met with extreme skepticism.

Nevertheless, the solution is not to back down, but to press forward. There needs to be a flood of truthful and diverse content into all media. More important than what people want, is what people need. To overcome skepticism, the people must be given a compelling reason to explore this flood of new content, whereby becoming liberated from narrow, stagnant thought.

Everyone has misconceptions, but the more widely everyone reads, listens, and views, the more likely each is to find pieces of the truth—and share them. Getting unstuck is the first step to progress.