Sustainability Principles 1, 2, & 3

Student:  I’d like to return to the principles of sustainability if I may.

Professor:  Certainly – what’s on your mind?

S:  Why is impermanence the first principle?

P:  It’s the first principle because it underlies every aspect of our experience in this plane of existence.  Everything changes and change “things,” change creates new things.  Nothing stays the same – the dynamic Process continually unfolds.

S:  I understand.  But if everything is constantly changing, then what is the point of trying to sustain everything?  Doesn’t sustenance mean to hold up and endure?  It seems contradictory to me.

P:  Sustainable doesn’t mean static.  After all we’re talking about living systems and if living systems stagnate they die.  The trick seems to be to design systems that recognize this dynamic and are resilient to the changes occurring around us.  One way to be resilient is to be adaptable and able to change as the world around you continues to develop as well.

S:  And love?  Why is that Number 2?

P:  Actually the order isn’t important.  What is important is the collective attitude and behavior that’s informed by all six principles together.  But, now that you ask, I suppose that as we discussed in Process, following the coalescence of planetary bodies and the much later origin of life on Earth – the awakening of sentience and the epitome of conscious thought, in my humble opinion, would be that of universal love and all the positive connotations that flow from it:  compassion, admiration, respect, reverence, awe…  It could be argued that Love should be number one because if all actions were guided by love for our fellow sojourners on this cosmic voyage it seems to me that everything else would take care of itself.  But impermanence is a cosmic force while love reflects our attitude towards one another, so I think the order makes sense.

S:  Why do you think it is that love is so easily overlooked and requires such constant reinforcement?

P:  You might ask yourself – is it easier to be loving or hateful?  Think of your state of mind as you drive down the highway.  Do you tend to be forgiving and generous to your fellow travelers or spiteful and vindictive?  Are you helpful and courteous or oblivious and ignorant?  Do you empathize or criticize?  I’d suggest that it’s much easier to be impatient and hurtful than it is to be tolerant and helpful.  Many times, the loving action requires that you step outside yourself and make a commitment to think of someone other than your self – to be selfless.  So we have to be reminded that loving thy brother is a virtue.

S:  Alright – next.  “Needs strengthen, wants weaken.”  You suggest that to seek after anything more than what is needed is selfish and leads to conflict.  That’s contrary to our whole economy – if people didn’t consume based on wants and desires as enticed by the blitzkrieg of advertising we’re exposed to every day - even to the extent that it infiltrates the television programming wedged between the ads – then production of goods would grind to a halt.

P:  First let me comment on you observation that this principle is contrary to our economic system.  Precisely.  Who is claiming that our system is sustainable?  A duration of 250 or 260 years, counting from the early Industrial Revolution, is hardly sustainable.  Plenty of indicators suggest that we are far from it.

Second is your comment about production of goods grinding to a halt.  For some things, yes – for needed things, no.  I’m still talking about “the making of things” but I’m referring to the mass consumption of resources and energy for the manufacture of things that are inspired by a sensitivity to what is needed more than by what people can be compelled to want.

Not that individuals should forego the impulse to create and invent and make new things.

S:  Can you give an example?

P:  Sure, take that laptop computer or tablet – is that a need or a want?

S:  It’s most certainly a need.  I need it to get information, to communicate, to record ideas and information, for entertainment, and for income.

P:  Right, here is a device that is needed today as an integral part of this person’s life yet 20 years ago, we all got along just fine without them.  Granted, society has changed and some things are just not as easy to do today without a computer, although some people manage.  The truth is, Western society is enamored of technology – this is nothing new.  We celebrate the unveiling of the latest cars and consumer electronics with great fanfare.

But is the cost of these devices worth the benefits we obtain?  Is it worth the environmental, social, and economic impacts on both small and large scales?  Can we even discern what those impacts are?  If we don’t know what the consequences of our actions are, is it ok to do it anyway?  The Earth is a large and dynamic system, one capable of absorbing massive disruptions to its equilibrium - whether by volcanoes, meteor strikes, oil spills, or carbon dioxide emissions, but there are limits to any system’s rejuvenating capacities and we have been seeing negative impacts from the beginning of this train wreck.

S:  That sounds pretty ominous Professor – you’ll usually more optimistic.

P:  It is ominous and I guess I’m pessimistic because of our short-term perspective to decision making.  When we start making decisions with a sensitivity and concern for several generations after us, I’ll have more hope – assuming we make it that far. 

On Excellence

Professor:  Greetings my friend, what’s on your mind today?

Student:  I’ve been thinking about excellence.  I’ve been wondering why some people strive after it while it’s not a priority for others.  Why is it that some achieve excellence and others who try don’t?  And, how we know when it’s been achieved – is it an absolute that everyone recognizes, or is it subjective and in the eye of the beholder?  Can we all achieve excellence in some form or another?

P:  Perhaps we should start by agreeing on what excellence means because I believe our perceptions of excellence are tempered by the context within which we’re observing.  Tell me what excellence means to you.

S:  At one level, we may strive to do our best - whether raking leaves, driving the car, performing our day jobs, pursuing a hobby, running a race, or tossing a Frisbee.  Those are examples of performing a task to the best of one’s ability – trying your best under the existing conditions.  I’d put excellence at the other extreme – a masterpiece, the absolute against which all others will be compared, and something than cannot be achieved by someone with average ability.

P:  That’s consistent with the origin of the root, “excel,” meaning to rise high and to be elevated above others.  So we’ll agree that “excellence” means a demonstrated ability that is above or better than the rest.  And, while one might do an “excellent” job at raking the leaves, there are many people who could perform that task with equal aplomb which somewhat diminishes its “excellence,” would you agree?

S:  That makes sense to me.  While a task may be completed to perfection, it doesn’t necessarily rise to the level of “excellence” unless it’s something that few can achieve.  Which suggests that excellence cannot be achieved by everyone because then “excellent” would just be average.  If “excellence” is recognized as being above or better than the rest, is it obvious when we hear, see, taste, or feel it?

P:   To one who is uninitiated in the relevant subject matter, its excellence may be inscrutable.  Someone who has never listened to classical music may hear Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Opus 67, and not understand it at all.  I’d suggest that even Beethoven aficionados who have listened to it 100 times may not recognize the metaphorical conflict between the positive and negative that his masterpiece portrays with major and minor keys or the craftsmanship that went into defining complementary motives and themes.

S:  But, even someone who hasn’t heard it before will recognize that it’s exceptional right?

P:  No, I think not.  Without a cultural reference point, I believe that the excellence of a Beethoven symphony, a Steinway Concert Grand Model D, a Mercedes AMG Roadster, or a piece of hand blown art glass by the master craftsman Dale Chihuly will be lost on the observer.  It’s not until we’re able to compare the “excellent” to others that we’re able to fully appreciate its excellence.

S:  Something extraordinary.  Something above average.

P:  Correct, to stand at the pinnacle of excellence implies an ability to do something uniquely well don’t you think?  It may be that in your neighborhood, you perform the finest yard care but in reality, no special skills are required, just the time and inclination.  While it looks very nice, it doesn’t rise to the significance of “excellence.”

S:  I guess there are societal and cultural definitions of excellence as well as personal definitions then.  My raking of the yard is my own personal demonstration of excellence for me, my family, and neighbors to appreciate while Beethoven’s is one for the world to appreciate, whether everyone likes it or not.

P:  Personal excellence isn’t relevant to this discussion unless it’s also excellent to a wider audience.  We’d all like to think that what we do is excellent.  I remember writing a paper as a freshman in college called The Need for an Attitudinal Change that I thought was most excellent.  My closest friends and I were certain that it was a transformative message that could change the world.  Re-reading it 33 years later (yes, I kept it because I thought it was so excellent), I realized that despite the A-grade it received, it wasn’t so “excellent.”

S:  Fine, I get it.  My yard work is just that – yard work.  I’m not winning any prizes in Lawn and Garden.   

P:  Good.  We’ve proposed that “excellence” is demonstrated by the ability to do something better than others, but others need to bear witness (and not just your loving mom who says everything you do is excellent!)  If you run the mile in 3:40, you’d break the world record, but it’s only an “excellent” achievement if someone else is a witnesses.  If Chihuly crafts a once-in-a-lifetime masterpiece but it slips off the pedestal before being photographed, it may as well never have happened.

S:  But artists, poets, musicians, and other creative types produce excellent works of art for the pure joy of creation.  Why must they be judged by others to be deemed “excellent?”  Not everyone understands or appreciates Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass or the Tao Te Ching or Beethoven’s 5^th, but that doesn’t lessen the significance of those achievements.  Just think if excellence was defined by the degree to which something appealed to everyone.  Universal appeal is the acid rain that erodes the pinnacle of excellence into the still sea of mediocrity.

P:  But, if there’s no relative comparison, how will we know if something rises above that sea of mediocrity?  Almost anyone with a glob of glass, a steel pipe, and a furnace can make a hand blown object of glass, but it takes skill, vision, and creative genius to create a work of art.

S:  Agreed – “excellence” rises above the sea of mediocrity and although it may not be universally appreciated, aficionados of the craft can judge its merit and deem it to be summa cum laude – a masterpiece a “Mona Lisa.”  Why is it then that some strive after it and others don’t and why are some able to achieve excellence and others are not?

P:  The explanation for why some excel and others do not must be as numerous as there are people who have come before us multiplied by the number of different avenues for human enterprise and expression.  Perseverance, luck, practice, timing, genes, inspiration, training, genius, materials, technology, patience, and myriad other conditions might combine to produce excellent outcomes.  Mozart is said to have spewed forth flawless first-draft manuscripts while Beethoven toiled and second-guessed himself through numerous revisions. 

S:  Those are subjective examples.  Certain achievements are undeniably superior – like world record times in sporting competitions, the scaling of Mt. Everest, or the landing of a man on the moon.  These are all superlative feats that deserve the highest praise and to which people can aspire with clear vision like saying “I want to be the next President of the United States.”  Whereas, the desire to craft the most exotic and graceful sculpture in glass is a personal goal that may be entirely irrelevant to the majority of people.

P:  But that’s ok, right?  We’re not judging one’s desire to create the most fantastic picture of a chair ever – if that’s what turns you on, go for it - right?  What we’re getting at is the desire or inclination of certain people or nations to strive to do something better than anyone else – whatever it happens to be – to run faster, to climb higher, to craft better, to sing the most beautifully, to fly higher.  And we honor and praise such behavior because it demonstrates to the rest of us what can be achieved as individuals, as organizations, as societies, and as a human race.  We need to have these benchmarks as goals, as targets, as references, for those who come along next to push the envelope and attempt to do as well or better.

S:  That sounds like the Olympic spirit.

P:  President Obama summed it up this way during his October 2, 2009 address to the International Olympic Committee:

[We] reach for a dream - a dream that no matter who we are, where we come from; no matter what we look like or what hand life has dealt us; with hard work, and discipline and dedication, we can make it if we try. That’s not just the American dream. That is the Olympic Spirit. It’s the essence of the Olympic Spirit.'

S:  But it’s not just the Olympic Spirit, or the American Dream, isn’t it the human spirit?

P:  It seems that there is a natural tendency, at least in our culture, to improve on things – to make things better – to build on the achievements of the past and improve the human condition.  But not everyone is so ambitious.  And, every effort to improve on the past can’t be assumed to be “excellent.”

S:  Is it the human ego’s need to compete?  Is it pure ambition – a thirst for popularity?  Is it a desire for honor, flattery, or favor?  Or is it just a self-confident cocky attitude that pushes someone to stick his head up and shout, “here I am dammit, show me if you can do it any better!”

P:  The explorer George Mallory reportedly scaled Everest “because it’s there.”  According to President John F. Kennedy, we went to the moon because:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

That speech from September 12, 1962 says a lot about the desire of the American people to win, to conquer, and to lead with a “banner of freedom and peace.”

S:  And we established a benchmark to inspire us, and the rest of the world, to further greatness.  It seems to me that leadership is a hallmark of being “excellent.”  Referring back to our definition – the pinnacle of excellence is visible to everyone who floats on the sea of mediocrity, if they choose to look up.

P:  Mediocrity may be a bit harsh, but your point is taken.  Some may choose not to look up – perhaps they’re content with the way things are and have no desire to change.

S:  If everyone achieved a state of “excellence,” what then?

P:  I’d suggest that humanity will never reach a condition when everyone achieves “excellence” in all aspects of everything we do.  “To err is human,” after all.  Even the Greeks and Romans recognized that it was unnecessary for each of their gods to be excellent in all ways and therefore imbued each with specific abilities that defined them.  While Zeus was more powerful than all, even he was weak when it came to female charms.

While a race may learn to live sustainably on the planet for millennia, as the aboriginal people of Australia have (and I trust you would agree that such a feat qualifies as being excellent) depending on the cultural perspective, others may consider them to be backwards and hopelessly anachronistic.  However, they may share the Hopi Indian perspective that rather than demonstrating our excellence by having landed on the moon, we simply illustrated further how hopelessly out of balance with Earth western society had become.

S:  Some may not be interested in excellence, as we define it – that’s their choice.  We may not be interested in excellence as they define it – that’s our choice.  What we choose to pursue and how it is that we might succeed in doing something others perceive to be “excellent” can be attributed to any number of factors, not the least of which is perseverance.

P:  And, while not everyone will individually achieve excellence, collectively and cooperatively with visionary leadership and a strong moral compass, societies can achieve great things about which we can all be proud.  We must equally take responsibility as individuals and as a people for performing, condoning, or simply ignoring those unworthy actions that lay hidden beneath the tranquil sea of mediocrity.   Perhaps we can discuss such things another time.    

Happiness

A exploration of some ideas on the nature of happiness.

Student:  Professor, I’ve been thinking a lot about happiness lately.  Why is it, do you think, that some people have difficulty finding it? 

Professor:  Let me make sure I understand your question.  Are you wondering why it is that some people are never happy?  If so, I’d suggest that such a state would constitute an atypical mental attitude that may require a medical or psychological rather than a philosophical answer.

S:  No, that’s not what I meant.  What I mean is, why are some people happier than others?  

P:  Oh, that’s different.  You want to know how many different reasons there may be for one person to be happier than another person.  I’d suggest that you’d be better equipped to answer that than I.  How many pair-wise comparisons can there be in a population of roughly 6 billion people?  That might be a starting point for the number of different reasons there may be.

S:  Ha!  I can’t do that one in my head, but it’s an astronomical number.  I get the point – there may be as many different reasons for one person to be happier than another as there are people.

P:  Not to mention the fact the each person might have a multitude of reasons to be happy or sad depending on the situation at hand.  Perhaps you’d like to try your question again?

S:  Alright, then how about this?  What does it take to be happy?

P:  Much better – that’s a question that I think we can discuss.  Let’s approach an answer systematically.  It’s such a broad and personal subject, as you just demonstrated, that we’ll need to narrow our focus to have a meaningful discourse.  Let’s talk a bit about the word itself and what it means to us.  Then we might explore what it is that brings us happiness or the converse.  And we can discuss a range of human experience from extremes of happiness to extremes of sorrow.  Then we may have some context within which to discuss what it takes to be happy and perhaps, why some people seem generally happier than others.  Just keep in mind that we can’t hope to explain all aspects of human happiness from within the confines of our respective windows on the world.  But let’s open the window and see what we find. 

S:  Fair enough.  Let’s start with the dictionary.  Says here that the word “happy” is derived from the Middle English word “hap” and Old Norse “happ” meaning “luck,” “fortune,” or “chance.”  It appears that many European words for “happy” originally meant “lucky.”  So, when one is fortunate or prosperous and when good things happ-en, people tend to be happ-y.  That seems straightforward enough, right?   

P:  Yes, but it’s not just when good things happen to us.  We can be made happy by doing something nice for another person, by hearing beautiful music, or by any number of external stimuli.  Let’s try to pull out some of the general elements of happiness.  Consider this matrix – perhaps it can provide a starting point for discussion of internal and external sources of happiness.

Form of Expression	Focus of Attention
	Outward – Toward Others	Inward – Toward Self
Mental	Thinking nice thoughts about others, meditation, prayer	Feeling loved, pleasing memories
Physical	Saying nice things to someone, giving a gift, doing something nice for another person	Receiving a gift, receiving praise, hearing a joke, seeing something funny

There are mental and physical forms of expression.  Both mental and physical expressions can be focused either outward toward others or inward toward ourselves.  We can think of reasons to be happy based on memories of past events, relationships, lessons, songs, places, philosophical or religious perception, awareness of loving friends and family, contentment for one’s quality of life and health, and other internalized perceptions.  These fall in the inward mental quadrant.

We can also be receptive to physical acts that bring us happiness like receiving love or praise from another, receiving a gift, or winning a prize.  Such events fall into an inward physical quadrant. 

Similarly, outward expressions - things we think about others or do for others can make us happy.  We’re happy when we fall in love or feel love and affection toward another (outward mental quadrant).   And, saying something nice to someone else, successfully completing a task, winning a race, scoring well on a test, or savoring a fine meal can bring happiness (outward physical quadrant). 

S:  That makes sense.  What about people who are happy being aimless, unstructured and spontaneous?

P:  That would fall into the internal mental - if that sort of thinking makes them happy, then who’s to argue?

S:  Then what about people who are unreceptive to external niceties – maybe they just don’t want to be cheered up?

P:  Well, our quadrants are devoted to happiness-generating situations so we don’t have a place for them at the moment.

S:  And what about people who find pleasure in other’s pain?

P:  We can’t hope to account for all the nuances of human experience when it comes to something as subjective to happiness.  And I’d suggest that we not attempt to incorporate aberrant mental attitudes in our current thought exercise.  These four simple categories may be generally but not universally applicable – every individual will have his or her own subtleties, but in simplest terms it would appear that we either create happiness from within or something external stimulates happiness and those happy thoughts can either be directed outward toward others or inward towards us.  It may be equally instructive to think about things that make us unhappy and then consider if we are happy when the converse applies:

•  If the loss of loved ones, either permanent or temporary makes us sad, then, reinforcing loving relationships should bring happiness which could fall in either of the physical quadrants as giving and receiving love;
•  If we’re unhappy when our plans are thwarted or our objectives, hopes, and dreams are dashed, then achieving said objectives should bring happiness.  Completing a challenging task falls in the outwardly physical quadrant;
• Most people are unhappy when they’re injured or ill; so being hale and robust should make us happy which falls in the inward mental quadrant; and
•  When people are unfriendly or uncooperative we tend to be less happy than when they are cordial and helpful which falls in the inwardly-directed physical quadrant.

S:  OK, I follow and that makes sense but what about the temporal aspect?  It seems to me that we can be “happy” and “sad” from moment to moment.   We might be annoyed by the buzzing of the mosquitoes, but we’re not going to let them ruin our vacation – we’ll drink a little more rum and button up our collars!

P:  True, from my experience, when I’m happy, minor irritations have less of an impact but they can be distracting and cause me to flip flop from being happy about whatever activity is occurring to being chagrined about some nagging frustration.  When I’m extremely happy though, I may be entirely oblivious to annoyances that might otherwise cause me to be blue or sad.

S:  I remember being at a funeral home for the visitation for a friend’s wife.  Clearly it was a terribly sad time for him but I and others with me were able to produce a few smiles and even a laugh or two when we talked and compared stories.  Not that we made him “happy” but I believe we were able to bring a little “happiness” to him at that extremely difficult time.  Of course, he had to be receptive to what we said for it to be effective and it likely only lasted a short while, but I find it interesting how people are able to flip the emotional switch so quickly between happiness and sadness.

P:  Speaking of flipping from one side to the other – what would you say is the middle ground.  Is ‘contentment’ half way between the extremes of happiness and sadness?

S:  I’d put ‘contentment’ on the positive side with happiness and ‘resignation’ on the negative side with sadness.  When I’m content, I feel satisfied with the way things are and consider myself to be happy.  I may be able to do certain things to increase my degree of happiness, but if no action is taken, I can remain content.  Resignation on the other hand implies a degree on unhappiness that one is forced to accept.

P:  Assuming that there is a continuum between extremes of happiness and sadness, what’s the middle point if not contentment?  Let’s map out some steps between the two extremes and see what we find:

1.     Bliss – we’ll call this the epitome of happiness – nirvana – let’s say a spiritual ideal – rarely attained

2.     Awe - Birth of a child, grandeur of Nature, speechlessness

3.     Ecstasy – loving emotional devotion, euphoria

4.     Elation – Shared peak moments – once in a lifetime,

5.     Joyful – challenging personal goals achieved, victory 

6.     Happy – sharing joy with family and friends,

7.     Satisfaction – routine deeds well done, accomplishments

8.     Amusement - jokes, entertainment, farts (sometimes)

9.     Contentment – pleasantly at ease, more positive than negative,

10. Tranquility – yin/yang – transition – a pool of water

11. Uncomfortable – not at ease – more negative than positive

12. Irritation/annoyance – mosquitoes, poison ivy, farts (other times)

13. Resignation – putting up with an annoyance and moving on (noisy neighbor, barking dog, dickhead boss)

14. Sadness – reprimands, arguments, fights

15. Pain/suffering – physical injuries – minor to severe

16. Depression – loss of job, divorce, extreme stress

17. Grief/Misery – emotional separation and aloneness, loss of loved one

18. Torture – extremely agonizing mental and physical ordeal

19. Despair – the depths of spiritual loss – no hope of salvation

Returning to your original question, well – the third iteration, your question seems to be, “how is it that some people tend to stay in the first 9 categories more than the bottom 9.  Naturally, from time to time, we all cycle through various aspects of this continuum – hopefully more on the positive side than the negative.

S:  I suppose, but just thinking about my own experience, and I consider myself to be a generally positive and happy person, I feel like I hang out in the “contented” category most of the time.  I find it hard to imagine that too many people spend most of their time being blissed out.  I’d think someone like that was on drugs or something.  I’ve experienced a range of happy emotions and if someone asked if I’m “happy” I’d say, “yes” but I probably wouldn’t say I’m ecstatic or even joyful all the time.  I think we jump in and out of these discreet categories depending on the situation – like the mosquito or the comedian – various external stimuli produce responses that we find either amusing or annoying.

P:  But what about the internal stimuli?  What about your personal mindset and your ability to find something to be happy about internally?

S:  It sounds like you’re referring to an optimist versus a pessimist.

P:  Sure – if you don’t have it within yourself to be happy, what good will some external stimuli do?  It may distract you for a moment, but when it’s over, won’t you revert to your normal grumpy self?  And, if you’re normally cheerful, then won’t a temporary bit of grief be overcome eventually by your positive outlook on life?  Are optimistic people just happier than pessimists?

S:  Not if the pessimist is happy being miserable.

P:  Well, perhaps you’ve known people like that, but let’s hope those are just temporary setbacks.  I think a key to being happy is to simply want to be happy.  Perhaps Eric Idle’s Life of Brian song sums it up well enough:  “Always look on the bright side of life.”  Another key might be to simply enjoy or appreciate the moment, whether it’s a brief taste of ecstasy or a simple satisfaction.  A third key is to look for happiness in other dimensions of the world around you.  As Mark Twain said,

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you

didn’t do than by the ones you did do.
So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."

Another strategy, for when life tosses that occasional curve ball is to take your mind off it by turning the tables on fate and do something nice for someone else.  As the Chinese proverb says: 

If you want happiness for an hour — take a nap.
If you want happiness for a day — go fishing.

If you want happiness for a month — get married

If you want happiness for a year — inherit a fortune.
If you want happiness for a lifetime — help someone else.

S:  All sound advice, but not so encouraging for a happy long-term marriage unless you’re planning to be helpful to that special someone else!

P:  Naturally!  And if we were all helpful to others, imagine what a happy place this could be.

Spending Time

A dialogue on how one’s perception of the value of time is influenced by one’s personal philosophy. 

Student:  Professor, have you ever thought about the idea of spending time?

Professor:  Sure, what aspect are you thinking about?

S:  I’ve been wondering why I don’t spend my time more wisely.  I have a finite amount of time and am in the sole possession of my time.  Given the finite nature which decreases constantly (and at constant rate), it seems that I should value and use it more wisely.  Clearly our time is worth more to ourselves than to others.  We sell our time to an employer, but are we getting good value? 

P:  Are you in possession of time?

S:  Sure – a friend will ask if I have a minute and I’ll stop and give him a minute of my time.  As a living being, I exist in this time and space and I share this experience with everyone else.  I have no choice but to “spend” time.  Perhaps more accurately, time will pass whether I get any value from it or not – beside the obvious value of just living.

P:  We consume time.  Time consumes us.  Isn’t “just living” value enough?

S:  That sounds like a riddle.  Maybe it’s as simple as that - the only value is in the living so why worry about it? 

P:  Time is a riddle, but I don’t think you believe the only value is in the living.  What about what it is that you do?  Time is a great unifying constant that we have no control over, but we do have control over what we do.  Why do you say that you don’t spend your time wisely?

S:  Because if I knew I had only days to live, I’d be doing something other than what I do from day to day.

P:  What do you do from day to day?

S:  Drive to work, sit at a desk, meet with people, solve other people’s problems, supervise employees, and help manage the company.

P:  So you provide a service to clients and co-workers that someone pays for.  What would you prefer to be doing?

S:  I think I’d spend more time writing and I’d spend more time with my loved ones and friends.

P:  Why?

S:  Because that way there’d be things to remember me by, things I’d written and memories shared by my loved ones.  And I’d have time to do things for them – to help them or give them advice.

P:  So, it would seem that you are placing a high value of this “spending of time” with friends and family and leaving behind remembrances of who you were.  Is there anything else you’d want to do if you knew your time was running out?

S:  I guess I’d wonder if I’d accomplished what I needed to do in this lifetime.

P:  Is there a difference between what you need to do and what you want to do during your life?

S:  Yes, I think so.  I think that what I need to do is unknown and tied to my spiritual development while what I want to do is associated with my corporal existence and the day-to-day and year-to-year goals and objectives I define for myself and with my loved ones.

P:  And if there’s a need for spiritual development, how would a physical being expect to achieve that if not through physical actions?  Even expressions of love or humor require physical actions.

S:  I agree, but there are limitless combinations of knowledge and experience to choose from.

P:  But if you feel that you need to learn and experience this dimension of reality in this window of time, then why worry about what you’re doing – isn’t the point to do something?

S:  I suppose, I just wonder if I’m doing the right thing.  Isn’t that natural?

P:  Other animals don’t have that problem do they?  They just go about the business of survival and procreation so as to live their lives and continue the species.  But to answer your question, yes, it is “natural” for us humans to second guess our actions.

I have three questions that will help you sort this out:

What is real?

What is good?

How do you know?

These three fundamental philosophical questions represent the basic inquiries explored in the areas of metaphysics (concerning the nature of things), ethics (concerning good and evil), and epistemology (concerning the nature of knowledge).  Another branch of philosophy, logic, deals with the arguments and reasons one uses to answer such questions.  By answering questions such as these, one can articulate a personal statement of philosophy. 

S:  Why should I delineate a personal philosophy?

P:  Because, whether it is articulated or not, one’s philosophy defines one’s worldview.  It is the basis for all thought and the context for all acquisition of knowledge.   By answering these questions, we gain wisdom; we reason out the nature of our reality – which may differ considerably from that of our neighbors; and we decide what pursuits are worthy or not.  Our philosophies affect every choice we make and every action we take.  Without an understanding of what is real, we would be helpless to function in the world around us.  Without a means to understand our thought processes, we would be unable to gain and apply knowledge and we would have no reason to believe that our thinking was anything other than a chaotic collection of images.  Without a means to decide on the right course of action, our lives would seem random and pointless. 

Each of us has a philosophy that we live by and that we use to understand and interact with the world.  In many ways, our philosophies overlap with those of our fellows.  But, in just as many ways, our philosophies draw us apart into separate realities of what is good and bad, beautiful and ugly, real and unreal, important and unimportant, meaningful and pointless.

S:  So what is meaningful and important for me to do may be pointless for someone else, I get that.  That doesn’t help me ferret out whether what I’m doing is what I should be doing.

P:  But your philosophy can.  When you ask yourself what is important for you to do, surely you get an answer.  You’re able to plan and prioritize.  You consider things that are obligatory and things that are optional.  You can choose to do unto others as you’d wish them to do unto you.  You can isolate ourselves from the world and live the life of a hermit.  You can take responsibility for your actions or you can choose to ignore the consequences.  There are untold permutations and possibilities, but your choices are informed by your world view, your values, your dreams and aspirations, your concerns, and losses:  all the experiences you bring to each moment.  How you interact with the world around you is completely up to you and is a function of who you’ve become through your interactions with the world around you.  Each action taken has an impact, however subtle, on who you become in the next moment.

S:  So it sounds like you’re saying it doesn’t matter – that whatever I do will help me learn and grow.

P:  That’s only partially correct because you’ve omitted the impact of your actions on others.  What I’m saying is that every thought and action does matter – to both you and the world around you.   There is some consequence for everything you do or don’t do.  We can’t sense all the myriad influences that our actions and words have, but if you’ve given some thought to what is real, what is good, and how you know, and then act accordingly, you are more likely to be happy about how you’re spending your time than if you have not.

Routines

Professor:  I suppose you’ve settled into a routine with your new classes by now.  I think routines are underrated.  It’s when our routines get thrown off that we miss them the most.  Think of a time when something’s happened that messed up your routine – an illness, an injury, a trip.  During those times I find myself thinking about how other people are able to go about their normal routines while I’m unable.  After a long trip or disruption to the schedule, I’m happy to return to my routines.  I like the dependability and predictability.  Recent medical news suggests that bodies prefer routine for optimal health too.

In contrast, randomness and abnormality is challenging.  It forces us to be more alert and less complacent (certainly not a bad thing).  And, if events take us out of our areas of comfort every now and then so that we appreciate things more, that’s good too.  Sometimes it’s fun to break the normal pattern and do things differently on purpose – like taking a different way home, the path less traveled, as Robert Frost said in The Road Not Taken:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I –

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

While it’s nice to break up the routine, our perception of routine really depends on how closely we attend to the details.  You get up, have breakfast, go to classes in a certain pattern, and do it again the next day.

Student:  Sure, on the macro scale, that’s true, but when we attend to the details, no two performances of the same routines are truly identical – just like two performances of the same Mozart sonata will exhibit subtle differences, at least to the trained ear.  At a certain level, Mr. Frost simply went for another walk.  If he’d carried a GPS unit and we wanted to drill down close enough, we’d see that it was a slightly divergent route, but still part of this “routine” of taking a walk.  At the macro scale – we’d just see that he was in the woods.

P:  Right, so we have differing perspectives, that of an observer and that of an actor.  From the actor’s perspective, each footfall could lead to a new experience – perhaps a twisted ankle, perhaps the avoidance of a beetle, or the sighting of a woodpecker.  From the observer’s perspective, depending on the proximity, there may be nothing different to report… “4-1-12, Subject R. Frost took another walk in the woods.  End of report.”

Let’s focus on the perspective of the actor for now.  We’ll leave the observers to their own routines for the time being.  Think of a prisoner in a jail, where the routine is dictated by others.  Even then, there will be subtle differences from day to day that may be missed by an unfamiliar observer.  Sounds, smells, layers of dust, wear and tear of garments and shoes, scuffs on the floor, all minute and perhaps inconsequential differences, but differences nonetheless.

S:  Sherlock Holmes would pick up on them.

P:  Right you are – he’s the fictional master of the subtle tell.  But again, he’s an observer and we’re focusing for the moment on the actor so as to explore the relative merits of routines and their converse.  Perhaps we’ll come back to Mr. Holmes later.

S:  Alright, well since you put it that way, what is the converse of routine?  Wouldn’t it just be randomness?  If the routine is to go from Point A to Point B, then “non-routine” would be to never reach Point B, correct?

P:  Purely speaking, I can’t argue with that.  But perhaps that situation presents a bit too much chaos to start with.  What if we assume that the task does get completed, but just by a different route or means for the time being?

S:  OK, we’re marching from Point A to Point B and considering the relative merits of different routes.  Perhaps I’ll skip instead of march or I’ll walk backwards.  What if I go with my eyes closed or in the dark instead of in daylight?

P:  In each case, you’ll experience the event in a slightly different manner and, depending on how astute you are, you may learn something different each time.

S:  Or I may just fall on may ass or bump into the wall.

P:  Stepping outside our routines does present some risk.  It may be trivial or it may be profound.  But, one can never presume that even the most mundane of routines won’t be affected by some unanticipated random event.  Perhaps a widowmaker happened to fall at the precise time Mr. Frost happened to pass along the same familiar path and clonked him on the head?

S:  Well, that certainly would’ve made all the difference.  He should’ve been paying attention.  I remember walking with friends along a trail in the woods one day.  Everyone passed along ahead of me on the same path, each one stepping over a snake without comment until I, bringing up the rear pointed out to them all, in their surprise, what they’d just done.  They weren’t paying attention either – they all saw it as a stick.

P:  Perhaps the point is that regardless of how routine or familiar a situation, pathway, or routine appears, there are always opportunities to perceive something new, we just need to be aware.  Perhaps by varying our routines within a prescribed set of behaviors that we’re obliged to perform to satisfy our societal and familial obligations, we open our senses to both subtle and dramatic changes that might otherwise be unnoticed.

S:  I’ll ponder that today and will try not to do anything foolish as I go about my routines.

P:  A stumble may appear foolish and still lead to wisdom.

Happy April Fools Day!

Chairs

Student:  If you could draw a chair better than anyone else, would it matter?

Professor:  If it was a special chair, perhaps.  Or, if chair drawings were rare and other attempts were feeble, perhaps.  Of course, others would have to see it first.  Just like the tree in the forest - falling with only its sister trees to hear, beauty is in the eye, or ear, of the beholder.

S:  Would the “specialness” be a function of the act of drawing, the final product, or both?

P:  I can anticipate that the process of creating the chair, assuming the product is exceptional, could be as interesting to observe as the final product.  If there was something special about the process – say that it was done with one’s eyes closed or completely from memory, it would be even more special.  Take the case of the memory artist who draws complete cityscapes.  The drawing itself is nice, but not so exceptional until you realize that it was done from memory and is highly accurate and detailed.

S:  So the process itself is really special?

P:  No, in this case, it’s the person (or the mind of the person) that is more special.  So what is so special about this chair?

S:  It’s an archetypal chair.

P:  So?

S:  It’s huge.

P:  And?

S:  It was drawn by a two-year-old chimpanzee with its eyes closed while eating a banana.

P:  Oh, well then that’s pretty special.  Yes, I see the banana smudge now.  What about that chair drawing over there?

S:  Oh, that little one is the only one of its kind.

P:  Why, can’t someone else do one like it?

S:  That’s hard to imagine.  It’s drawn with individual carbon atoms using an electron microscope.

P:  Why?

S:  Just to see if it could be done.

P:  The person is clearly more of a scientist than an artist.

S:  And the chimp?

P:  Clearly not a scientist, but never mind the chimp.  What about that colorful one?  It looks inviting and cozy.  I can imagine re-reading my favorite book in that chair.

S:  I like that too – there’s a film documentary about how the artist has cranked out hundreds of them with a silk screener, all different colors, but basically the same image.

P:  Hmmm, well – I guess I don’t really care how it was drawn ‘cause I just like the image.

S:  Should we care about how the chair was drawn or how the final image looks?

P:  Both can be of interest to the viewer – it depends on their perspective.  One may be more interested in learning how the creative process unfolded.  Another may be more interested in experiencing the end product.  Maybe your chair is a metaphor.  Maybe there’s more to your question than meets the seat of your pants.

S:  Like what?  Like hidden meaning or some cult thing?

P:  No, like some symbolism or a general truism that can apply to other situations.

S:  Other chairs?

P:  Sure - other chairs and anything else you can create:  a story, a painting, a flower arrangement.

S:  Does it have to be a creation?

P:  Yes, let’s say it’s a creation of some sort.  Someone’s creation is only of interest to someone else if there is some meaning, some value, some significance, some hook.  The first chair was ok, but when we learned that a chimp had done the second, it took on special significance.  Sometimes the meaning or connection is achieved by the work itself – it reaches out and touches people.  The picture speaks to you.  The sonata moves you.   Otherwise, it only holds significance if you’re particularly interested in the subject, e.g., chairs, or perhaps you have a connection with the creator:  my great grandfather made that chair or my four year old daughter made this one out if bubblegum.

Other times, we may have the opportunity to march along with the creative process and observe the thought process, the technique, the skill and appreciate how the artist crafts the chair, the vase, or the flower arrangement.  Such observation enhances our appreciation of what went into creating the object.

S:  I’m with you.  And?

P:  So it’s hard to predict what will resonate with people – what will reach out and touch them.  What may seem absurd to one could be sublime to another.  I think the point is to put your chair pictures out there if that’s what you feel strongly about.  If you do something with passion, that energy will be felt – at least by someone.  And if you don’t you’ll never know if you might have had something to share that others would value.

S:  I know what you mean.  There was a video of a girl singing a dopey song about the weekend that went viral on the internet.

P:  I know the one.  People really connected with that and it became popular.  I’m sure many thought it was silly, but I’m afraid that “Friday Friday” refrain got lodged in my head somehow.  It did make me laugh.

S:  I see what you mean.  Take a chance – put yourself out there and see what sticks.  What’s there to lose?

P:  Absolutely, in an age of information technology, we may as well be sharing as many ideas as we can.  Someone has to come up with some good ones!

S:  I think I’ll go draw a chair.

DON'T PANIC

Student:  Why do people panic?

Professor:  It would seem that the most direct answer is because circumstances that have a direct bearing on their health or well-being are beyond their control.

S:         Forgive me, but that doesn’t seem very direct.

P:         Would you care to offer another explanation?

S:         I think people panic when they’re frightened.  I think it’s in response to fear.

P:         Yes, I’d agree that people panic in fright and that may be rational – an instinctive fight or flight reaction that we label as panic.  But, doesn’t panic connote another level of response?  One that is perhaps irrational?

S:         Yes, I suppose we might consider someone who’s panicking to be a bit crazed.

P:         Of course the word originates from the Greek god, Pan, god of the forest who frightened people with scary noises and caused panic.

S:         So, I was right then – it’s based on fear.

P:         Well, in the classic sense, I suppose it is.  But we don’t often get frightened by forest sounds any more.  Perhaps we need to understand why people get frightened then.

S:         Maybe, but there are a million reasons.

P:         Yes, but do they all result in panic?  Can you think of a fear that doesn’t cause a panic?

S:         Sure, how about the fear of death?

P:         Yes, people naturally have a fear of the unknown and death is the greatest example.  But, we don’t see people rushing around in a panic about it do we?

S:         No, but it’s a universal truth that everyone understands so there’s no reason to panic.

P:         No rational reason.

S:         Do you think some people panic over death?

P:         No doubt, as the time draws near, people may panic over not having done things they intended or hoped to do, not having their affairs in order, etc.

S:         So, is time a factor relative to panic?  Does the degree of panic increase with the shortest of time?

P:         Not necessarily, I like the dictionary definition that says panic is “sudden uncontrollable fear or anxiety, often causing wildly unthinking behavior.”  Here we have two critical elements of panicked behavior:  “uncontrollable” and “unthinking.”  These behaviors would be more likely the result of terror than simple fear.  If you think of the range of emotions that encompass degrees of fear, perhaps we can get a fix on where panics kick in.  One might be: pensive, apprehensive, worried, startled, frightened, shocked, or terrorized.

S:         I follow you, but how would you describe the state of uncontrollable fear causing wildly unthinking behavior?  Are we talking about a panicked mob of people escaping a burning building or a bunch of investors jumping off bridges when the stock market collapsed?

P:         Both are good examples of panic and I suppose it’s that irrational element that captures the meaning best for me.  When one’s fears and anxieties overcome one’s ability to rationalize, we become susceptible to panic attacks.  And, when circumstances that have a direct bearing on our happiness or health are beyond our control, people may be unable to rationalize a course of action that helps them to escape the predicament.  Then they panic and most likely make matters worse.

S:         I guess that’s why Douglas Adams said, "DON’T PANIC."

P:         "DON’T PANIC," and "know where your towel is!"

Happy Spring!

Newer and Better

Professor, I’ve been wondering why our culture seems to always need to create something newer and presumably better.

Go on.

Well, why do we need a new model of car every year?  For that matter, why do we need 50 different models of cars – each one being tweaked each year?  I understand the marketing aspect – but are they really better?  Can’t we leave good enough alone?

Setting aside the observation that each auto manufacturer needs to distinguish itself from its competitors by establishing a given look and that there is a range in quality associated with the range in prices that consumers are willing to pay, I guess your point concerns our culture’s obsession with creating new and improved models of anything and everything, right?

Right.

But at the same time, many “new” products do reflect improvements, whether through ergonomic design of a tool, safety features added in response to tragic accidents, or changes that reflect a creative new approach to an old way of doing things.

Yes, I understand artistic creativity and invention, I recognize that tools and techniques can be improved upon and that feedback is a valuable tool in refining our abilities to do things well.  But, isn’t it possible that we reach a point of diminishing returns – that the effort invested in making additional “improvements” is not proportional to the value (or need for) those changes?

I’m surprised to hear someone who values the creative process so highly suggest that we needn’t strive to improve the way things are done.

No, you misunderstand, Professor – my question is why devote so much time and energy to making superficial changes when the resultant “improvements” are inconsequential.

Well, you’ve mentioned marketing as motivation for product “improvements,” that’s certainly one aspect of “newer and better” to discuss.  In our consumer-driven technocentric society, you must recognize the fundamental importance of there being new stuff to purchase.  You might find the 1996 essay by R. Cronk entitled, Consumerism and the New Capitalism of interest in this regard:  http://www.westland.net/venice/art/cronk/consumer.htm

Our tendency to seek technological solutions to societal challenges as well as capitalistic opportunity continues to produce cool stuff that most everyone wants to have, yes?  Do you find fault with the invention of the cell phone to replace land lines?

No, that is certainly an improvement in our ability to communicate that has benefited many people.  I’m more interested in time-tested technologies that need not be improved upon – I’d like to think that at some point we could say that we got something right.

Like the book for example?

Exactly – the book.  Now we have the electronic book.  Here’s a product that “improves” on over 500 years of book-making technology by placing at our fingertips hundreds of books in one slim battery-powered high-tech device.  Clearly, the device is useless if it can’t be charged – books don’t have that problem.  Clearly it’s more fragile than a book.  Clearly it will become obsolete within a couple years and have to be replaced by the next generation only to become another piece of non-biodegradable toxic material tossed in a landfill.

Let’s step back for a moment and consider the big picture.  You ask why it is that we have an urge to create newer and better.  Based on the examples you’ve given, I suppose you mean the creation of newer and better things, that is – items of commerce – items that can be bought and sold?

Not necessarily – it seems that people strive to enhance all dimensions of their lives.  Medical science is trying to understand how the brain works and how to genetically prevent disease, architects and engineers are trying to enhance the way buildings use energy, developing nations are trying to “develop,” and artists and entertainers are always looking for the next big thing.  Is this simply ambition?  And, if so – why are we so ambitious?

But let’s focus for now on material things as opposed to growth and the pursuit of knowledge, alright?

Alright, Professor.

And let’s think about the creative process.  Creation by definition implies that something “new” is made, does it not?

Yes.

And when one makes something new, one either develops a completely original thought, process, image, or thing or, one builds on something that is already familiar but with a new twist or “tweak” as you said.

I suppose so.

You sound unhappy about that.

Not really, but you haven’t answered the question about reaching a point of diminishing returns – that in many cases there is no value in making further enhancements to things that are already good enough.

You’re right.  To that point, if we agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with the creative process, then the decision to create something that may be of marginal value is a personal choice, is it not?

I don’t understand.

Well, if one chooses to create something purely for the joy of the creative process – whether a song that no one hears or a drawing that no one sees – it’s a personal decision whether or not to invest the time and energy to do so, correct?

Sure.  And a product that no one buys?

The same thing – a company may make a decision to make a product that no one wants and that’s their choice.  But, presumably not because they simply thought it would be fun.  They did it because they thought people wanted or needed it, or could be convinced that they would.  Perhaps it just didn’t perform as advertise or another company came out with something more intriguing at the same time or they just couldn’t attract enough attention for whatever reason.

Okay, I follow that logic.

Ok, now let’s think for a moment about durable material things that we all use – perhaps a cup or a screwdriver.  Such objects have a utilitarian function and they tend to last a long time.  When we need a new one, we go out and get one without a lot of thought.  Sure, we might want the cup to match the others we own, we might even want it to be made of a certain material.  The screwdriver should be of the correct style and size, but beyond the basic look and feel, there’s not a lot to think about.

Other items are more personal:  a garment, a writing tool, or a piece of furniture.  Choosing these things may require more thought, largely because there are a lot of choices.  Your question may be – why so many choices, especially, when one may not be any “better” than another.  I’d suggest that this first level of differentiation has mostly to do with personal preference (i.e., consumer demand).  It’s as simple as the choice between two identical cars – one white and one black.  If there was no demand for black cars, they would be rare indeed.  As rare it would seem as a paisley or polka-dotted car.

And now we get to the crux of the matter – objects that are “improvements.”  Here we consider changes to the operation, look, feel, and use of objects ostensibly because they are “better” than the prior version.  “Build a better mousetrap…” it’s said, “…and the world will beat a path to your door.”  Actually, the sentiment was expressed by Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1855 when he wrote in his journal that:

If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods.

It sounds like Mr. Emerson was talking about quality, not innovation.

Yes, I agree.  His choice of the word “better” suggests to me that he recognized that people will go out of their way for a quality product.

I understand that Professor, I’d buy the Rolls Royce too if I could afford it because I’d expect it to last forever.  I’ve always thought it best to invest more up front for something that will last longer than a cheaper version that won’t be as serviceable, safe, comfortable, or enjoyable.

But it sounds like you don’t care much about “keeping up with the Jones.”

That’s true – at least to the extent of having the latest and greatest of this or that.  That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

And if there wasn’t a demand for the “latest and greatest” would there be any reason to produce it?

I should think not, unless the idea was simply to force it down the consumer’s throat.  And, I know I’ve felt that way.  We’re socialized to think that things have to be upgraded, enhanced, refreshed, improved, and refined and we buy into it.

What would happen if we didn’t buy into it?

Excellent question - think about it for next time.