Draft #1
when a song comes on that we'll listen to someday.
And dream about you.
[spoken rapidly to a crescendo]by dipping a broomstick, curbing my cursing, practicing pancake flipping, avoiding trans fats, putting the seat down, mowing the lawn, dotting my Is, crossing my ts, wearing sunscreen and, waiting, hoping wishing and waiting to open my eyes...
Random
1. So, today was a more banal, jaw-clenching day than usual.
1a. However, things happen which make you remember why life is great...every time you wake up it presents an opportunity to be damn happy or to make someone else damn happy.
2. My life is easy. Rather, it's hard in the easiest ways. And that's okay, for now.
3. Watching how people act under duress is revealing. So is watching them in their most relaxed state.
4. Ain't nuttin like a good PB&J Sandwich.
Doing the little things big.
I used to think more about about big things and big moments. And by "think" I mean dream and romanticize about them. There's an allure to imagining yourself at the pinnacle of your element, doing what you always imagined. And it's healthy, because by visioning yourself performing at the highest level and immersing yourself in the thought of your greatest moment is one step required to get to that point in time.
I want to know that something I did mattered, or that I was able to accomplish something big in my life. I yearn to make an impact--just like millions of others, especially other arrogant, optimistic, passionate, young, educated people I've met or know intimately.
And yet, I'm not so sure that those moments really matter, at least not in the way I had originally imagined them.
I always thought of those moments, the "big" ones, as the times where the world changed. Like the falling of the Berlin Wall, the Apollo moon landing, 11 September 2009, or any monumental political moment (e.g., elections, major legislative victories, or Supreme Court decisions)--I thought these events were the time that defined our world and our lives within them.
But, I think I was wrong. These events are not the moments where the world changed, they are the moments that signify that the world has already changed. They are not the transformative moments they are the occurences which signal that the cat's already out of the bag. When those "big" moments happen, it shows that there's no going back to yesterday's world order.
The same goes with our lives individually or on a smaller scale. Life is changed--won and lost--with all the seemingly little moments in between the noise-making, siren-howing, bookend events. The little things--that happen in the trenches--are where the magic happens.
I have a hard time articulating this paradigm that I'm feeling--I guess what I mean is that even that the "big" moments are fun to fantasize about, the seemingly "little" moments are what deserve the majority of our effort and attention. Little opportunities happen all the time and those opportunities are important to chase after and build upon, because through those moments--little ones accumulating--that's where happiness and success lie and that's where the world's problems get solved.
The little things aren't "dues to pay" to make big things happen. Doing the little things big is what's really powerful. May that's what I mean.
Ahh, I can't really get this idea out of my head in a way that's really compelling.
Every Day is a Good Day
I don't think it's atypical, but I really enjoy and miss little things. Especially lately.
I miss things like playing FIFA or roommate quirks. I miss hugs and high fives and spontaneous laughter. I miss walking places and moments of total autonomy. I miss having coffee with others and having no expectations attached. Most of all, I miss spending time with close friends and family. If I had any idea how time was limited, maybe I would've realized how wonderful humdrum days really were. The best things happen on those days--they are the brick and mortar of day to day life. Memories...the really good ones are made then.
But, why? Why remember those silly things?
Maybe it's because those moments were most at ease. Maybe those are the times that it's possible to connect with an "inner center", with others or with broader truths in life. I don't know why I long for those moments so much...it's cliche that I do. But yet, I can't help but remember them, and savor them.
Maybe it's because idle time is so precious these days. Maybe it's because I have a long commute and am forced to sit by myself for 1.5 hours a day.
Either way, every day is a good day.
Game
Today, was my first informal lesson in "game". Sure, I've had chats with buddies about game and some anecdotal accounts of technique. But a friend of mine really knows his stuff. And, he imparted some of his wisdom, findings and challenges to me.
Which is helpful. I don't have much "game", at the very least the "game" I do have isn't traditional or particularly effective for someone in their early to mid twenties. I was an eager student.
But, it's a shame that we need game--don't naively thing that we don't--in the first place. Why? Because its essential to get the attention of the person we're interested in. We need to meet people--men or women, depending on your preference--and that takes effort. Beyond that, we REALLY need game, though because everyone else is engaging in competitive behavior.
By competing eachother we accelerate the need to advance our own interests. If we do not engage in game, we will be consumed by others playing the game. If a guy doesn't "game" at a bar, someone else will try to sweep away a woman he's eyeing and comingling doesn't really happen spontaneously at bars. (Sometimes I think that people enjoy engaging in this semi-competitive behavior, but that's a different story). Basically, if you don't play the game...you're more of less out of luck.
It's not unacceptable, but it's essentially a selfish behavior, i think. To get the attention of someone else, you have to take and be a little bit selfish.
But, as I often come back to, selfish behavior doesn't have to rule our interactions if nobody is selfish. In other words, if nobody else is acting selfishly, you don't have to.
I think this applies to game as well. If people are just being honest and making intentions clearly, there would be no reason to "game". It'd probably be simpler and probably easier. I'd say the risk involved with "gaming" is just about as severe as the risk of just being honest, though honest migh tbe a little bit tougher to bear because if you blow it being honest, there's no other recourse or place to deposit blame.
So overall -
"Game is selfish"
It doesn't have to be because if nobody does it, then theres no reason for game.
So, why "game" when you can just be honest.
It gets complicated, I think, but I think the answer here is a simple one. Don't be selfish. If most people don't act so selfishly, our social intearactions would be much different.
Gosh, I shouldn't write when I'm exhausted.
The Unlikely Consequences of Genetic Engineering
I was listening to a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/gregory_stock_to_upgrade_is_human.html on the car ride home today. Let me summarize before I comment on it.
Biotechnolgy will drive our lives soon. Because of advances in genomics/biotechnology we can unlock our biology and have designer babies, live a long time and do lots of crazy stuff. There will be things we agree with and things we wont. But that does not matter because if people have the power to do something crazy with our genes, it will happen somewhere. (Of course, I'm crudely summarizing a really eloquent, interesting talk. Also, I'm only taking the portions which are relevant to what I'm going to comment on).
People will have tremendous power in the future to alter DNA or manipulate DNA to their own purposes. That's god-like power.
How will we handle it?
The way I see it, humans will have to learn to be tame with power before all of this starts happening. We'll have to depend on people to do the right thing at all times, especially while they hold onto this power. Legislation and enforcement can't solve everything. People have to act on their own in a way that does not negatively affect the community.
The way I see it, genomics isn't the only area in which this matters. We have increasing amounts of control over the courses of our own lives. On the internet you can do whatever you want and say whatever you want. We have the ability to influence others with our dollars, technology and ideas in a way never before possible in human history. Beyond that, in America at least, it seems as if political institutions and policymakers are trying to enable individuals with more and more responsibility. And, political institutions are having more and more difficulty containing the behavior of their respective citizenries. In short, weak individuals are becoming more powerful. Individuals are able to disrupt the community in a really, really powerful way sometimes.
It's clear that we have to tame power in our society--espeically as weaker people become stronger--if we don't many disruptive forces will start to...well, disrupt. Which is great if mroe people are empowered, and there's great benefit to societal disruption (civil rights movement, anti-apartheid, etc.).
But, if individuals are becoming more powerful and able to disrupt, those individuals have to act in a way that preserves the welfare of others, if we don't, we'll slowly (or quickly) destroy ourselves. The way I see it, if we (individually or collectively) have too much hubris, we're doomed. We have so much power, to help ourselves or hurt ourselves. If we don't use that power wisely or are too arrogant to think we're vulnerable to abusing power we're doomed.
But how?
I think it's possible to tame great power, because I see pockets of people who tame their own power...who do the right thing and do not act out of fear but out of virtue. So, I know it's possible. The problem with widespread adoption of humility and virtue is a problem of scale, I think. How do you get large numbers of people to voluntarily do the right thing. How do you get large numbers or people to trust one another and tame their own power?
I had a professor once that would call this ability--the ability to tame ones power and do the right thing--leadership. I would agree, I believe leadership is simple...do the right thing and get others to, too. The army calls it "Be, Know, Do". But I digress, my firm belief in virtue/character-based leadership is a topic for another day.
I dream of the day that leadership will no longer reference an individual, but a group of individuals or larger groups than that, like countries. As in, one might say, not that the United States has leaders or is a leader, but that the the United States is leadership. The sky is blue, the people are leadership...you know, like an adjective.
I know we can do this--tame power. And with what power we will discover in the future...during my lifetime even, we'll have to.
Forgive the poor use of language/grammar...this was a hustle post, I was afraid to lose my thought if I didn't speed on through.
Early September, Part II - Early Childhood Education
Lots of people advocate for education--access, k-12, higher ed., etc. I'm glad they do. I haven't really been bit by the Education reform bug...not more than any other left-leaning independent anyway.
But early childhood education, I'm sold that's the best solution we've got.
I don't really mean to talk about politics here, but just write an expression of thanks.
I'm so lucky to have the parents I did. They read to me, read with me, and had me read to them...all starting by the time I was three. They brought me up with two languages. They had me doing times-tables and math from a really early age. My dad started showing me pre-algebra a few years before it was introduced in school.
It got me started learning really early in life. They supplemented my schooling in ways that were invaluable.
That shouldn't be considered "lucky".
Early September, Part I - Fear the most
Earlier, I took a few moments to think about the topic of fear. You can find that discussion, here: http://ntambe.blogspot.com/2009/05/exploring-fear.html.
Here's an excerpt:
"...Loneliness is [what I fear], and death by extension. A world alone is one that I would never want to live in. I'm damn sure that fear isn't natural, I know exactly where it comes from.
But, even if I understand fear more clearly now, this wishy-washy idea of "alignment" isn't any easier. But luckily, we're human. I'm convinced that the human spirit is strong enough to do almost anything. In fact, when the human spirit triumphs, it makes me feel fearless. Even if only for a quickly passing moment."
I went to Chicago on Friday. I decided to stay the evening and fly back to Detroit on Saturday morning. Obviously, I needed a place to stay. I had three options: 1) Drop some money for a hotel room, 2) Stay out all night, 3)Find a friend to stay with. A friend from work, offered me a couch for the night in an e-mail earlier that week.
I declined. I went ahead and booked a hotel, even though she had offered. I didn't know why at the time.
I though to myself that I politely declined because I didn't want to inconvenience her. After all, I'd pretty much be staying on her couch for 3-5 hours and leaving extremely early the next morning. I thought, I was being considerate...rather, I convinced myself of it.
What I thought about Friday evening--ironically, I was walking to see Jersey Boys at the theater, alone, at the time--what that I had declined because I was scared. Even though she had offered, I was afraid she would angered by the request, refuse or think poorly of me if I had asked. In other words, I was avoiding making a request of her (a sort of confrontation, I suppose) and rejection. Why? Because rejection is the step-sister of loneliness.
Why do I bring this up? I don't know, maybe it's just for my own reflection. But also, I think it's terrific that these fears show symptoms. It's just hard to see them. And then admit them. Then do something about them. Really tough stuff.
So I guess it was nice that everyone had left town to go to Ann Arbor, my phone died--so I couldn't contact my colleagues after the show to meet up, and nobody else I had tried to make plans with had called me back. Otherwise, I would've never thought about this. But, it was pretty scary being by myself...I had felt pretty lame. As it turns out, being alone was exactly what I needed to understand why I get so anxious about loneliness.
Is that irony, coincidence or perfectly sensible? Sensible, I think.
PS - Jersey Boys, a pretty good show. Quite a pleasant surprise.
Innovation, Pressure and Leadership
I've been listening to a lot of material about innovation lately. There's one consensus thought: innovation takes discipline. It takes the management of inspiration and persistence, so they say. And, I agree. To be creative--to have good ideas which are valuable in people's lives--is useless if it happens randomly or only in sporadic surges of ideating. Innovation is valuable, if a problem-solver can produce an innovative by recalling a process, instead of just being dependent on unpredictable spurts of creativity. That process takes persistence.
I've also been living in a world where pressure rules. There's never enough time to complete a task in a manner that's comfortable. Everyone works in a hurry because it consumes less resources and prevents opportunities from extinguishing. Also, groups of people seem like they are hardly motivated without pressure.
The problem is, rushing doesn't produce innovation. I suppose it might--because competition might require innovation--but pressure seems unlikely to guarantee truly brilliant innovation because there's no opportunity for experimenting, exploration or risk-taking while under tight deadlines or immense pressure. I suppose innovation MIGHT happen, but in the random, sporadic way. Not the cultivated, systematic way. That cultivated innovation--through discipline--is the kind of innovation I'm after.
So, there are contrary forces here: the need to innovate and the pressures of organization(constraints of time, resources or anti-inspiring missions). So, in a way...maybe it's not typical to lean towards innovation. It's not rational to fly in the face of pressures and constraints. Maybe that's why it takes "leaders" to transform. Maybe that's why it takes the "crazies" to innovate.
I do have quite an admiration for the leadership that entrepreneurs can provide, they relentlessly do what is most difficult. And, those whose creativity lies in creative processes instead of creative talent...those are the people that I'd bet my marbles on.
What was Gandhi's intent?
It's not just the social justice crowd that adheres to or at least proclaims that one must "be the change they wish to see in the world". Lots of people advance this idea. But, I wonder, what exactly did Gandhi mean when he said this?
Most of the idea is simple enough "[blank] the change you wish to see in the world", that's pretty straight forward. But what exactly did he mean when he said "be"? I wonder, what was the nature of this imperative. Was it a suggestion, a compulsion to action or simply a state of mind or spirit to be in? Let me explain.
I think there's two ways to interpret the verb in the quotation. The more common understanding, I suspect, is a call to arms by Gandhi. He meant for us to go out and do things in the world. To live the change we wish to see by performing deeds and actions. He meant for us to focus on our actions, strongly. This is a command of the deepest sort--to be--make agitation and action your existence. He meant for us to transform the world through service.
Or did he?
Did Gandhi put character in front of action in his advice? Perhaps Gandhi, when using the verb "be", deliberately did NOT provide a call to arms and instead urged people at an individual level to live more virtuously. In other words, maybe "be" meant to have more character. His advice could have been to live better more noble lives and change the world by living an example that others could follow.
Surely, many will understandably complain about my analysis because Gandhi obviously meant to do both or his idea could reasonably be extended to include both interpretations. But, his primary motivation is what concerns me because it seems to underpin his philosophy on change...what's in the drivers seat, changing institutions or changing people? Again, a complicated question because the two are symbiotic actors.
Which interpretation would Gandhi advocate for?
I bring this up because of some reading I've been doing--The US Army Leadership Field Manual. The Army believes the following: Be, Know, Do. This roughly means, have character, have competence, combine the two through action. For the Army, the two interpretations outlined above are different ideas (Be and Do). I wonder if Gandhi felt the same way.
Nevertheless, this quote has lost so much value when people recite it. I really believe that motivational speakers and the like say it without thinking really critically about what it means. As I hope to have demonstrated above, it can mean radically different things.
Eating our Vegetables
There was a question in President Obama's news conference Wednesday night, in fact a them, about what Americans are going to have to sacrifice. The President gave a nonsensical, straw-manned response. I'll liken it to the following (I'm summarizing and paraphrasing, of course):
Question: What will the public have to sacrifice, you've talked a lot about what they are going to get...but what are the things we'll have to give up?
Answer: We'll have to give up having healthcare services we don't need.
We'll have to give up the old way of doing things, we'll have to give up the status quo.
You can find a transcript, here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/transcript_of_obama_prime-time.html
I was flummoxed by the response. I know our President isn't a healthcare professional or a scientist, but would it have killed him to talk about some things that are obvious? For example, would it have been a stretch for him to say that Americans are going to have to eat healthier, exercise more and manage stress better? Isn't it obvious that we're going to have to see our doctors for routine checkup instead of letting health problems fester until they are emergencies?
I think he should've. Why? Because it's the truth. I thin under any new system, citizens must take care of themselves better. We'll have to change to living healthier lifestyles. Is that so controversial? For the President to neglect such narratives--discussions of sacrifice--is a deficiency in leadership. It is dishonest, deceptive and doesn't not provide appropriate expectations for a difficult road ahead.
President Obama should've told us to put down the doughnut. If he had, wouldn't you have agreed with him?
Like Catching Fireflies
And like fireflies, it's wonderful and reasonable and uplifting to have those fireflies held in those jars, even though we know that's not where they belong. They belong in nature, where god created them. I think art is meant to be free.
There is god in art, I think. In images, in movement, in sound in color and words. Which is why we like it so much or so desperately want it. What's not to desire of something with beauty or grace? The rest can be taught, but beauty and grace can only be gifted and maybe discovered. Why else would the things that are essentially majestic usually be natural, spontaneous or dreamed in a rage of creativity?
It's as if the artist--of whichever medium--is catching fireflies. We catch them one by one and put them in shiny mason jars when the weather is just right. And like fireflies, it's wonderful and reasonable and uplifting to have those fireflies held in those jars, even though we know that's not where they belong. They belong in nature, where god created them. I think art is meant to be free.
If it isn't, it makes me feel much better about not being able to catch a poem and cage it in a notebook, in years. It's gotta be okay to borrow creativity for awhile, though.
And, I don't know how I feel about god (though I use the idea freely here) whether or not a god exists or has relevance in our day-to-day lives outside of faith--or if any of it even matters. But if that god was responsible for making things like art, friendship, freedom or souls and their mates...that god has to be a gracious one.
-----------------------------------------------
We'll make scribbles in the morning soil,
And a put a canvas on the afternoon squall.
In the evening shaking like the first tree we see,
Before recording the whistling of the stars,
Oh...what a masterpiece we'll make.
Governance 2.0? and reviewing Paul Light's a Government Ill Executed
So, what do we need to do to get governance ready for new problems?
Whether or not I've blogged about this before, I often think it: our reconstruction of institutions for governance are outpaced by our increasing and increased demands on institutions for governance. Our problems are becoming more difficult to solve just as our capacity for solving those problems lags behind. I'll take this as truth because I've read about it quite a bit in Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed, I've heard about it from people who know governance, I've witnessed it myself and it's evidenced in small things like crumbling bridges, baffling government websites and inept paper trails.
So, what do we need to do to get governance ready for new problems?
First, what are the tell-tale signs of new breeds of problems?
Interdisciplinary Complexity - We're not in Kansas anymore. Problems we have are large and difficult, often requiring multi and interdisciplinary problem solving approaches. For example, protecting our borders requires addressing illegal immigration, drug smuggling, food safety, the mapping of terrorist networks, financial intervention etc...only to name a few. This one example encapsulates many different disciplines and issues. Moreover, many of these components are intertwined in other government missions (food saftey is related to public health, etc.).
Data Centered - The problems now have to be addressed in the most cheap, effective, and non-intrusive way possible. On top of that there's a tremendous amount of data that's able to be collected. On top of that, performance is measured quantitatively (my guess that it's a borrowing from the financial system, for better or worse). All of this requires data at all steps in the problem-solving process.
Speed, but - Things move fast. If problems aren't addressed quickly, the nature of the problem will change. At the same time a lot of problems require long term strategy, planning or oversight. So, speed must be balance with long-term circumstances...which is really hard, in my opinion.
Subject to democracy - As constituents, we have access to a lot of information. Because of this there can be a tremendous amount of scrutiny from interest-groups, the educated public or the public at large. So, governmance structures not only need to be able to withstand scrutiny but also filter out irrelevant or politicized criticism and leverage increased exposure of government work to aid in problem solving. Institutions of governance need to be able to know when to say "we're wrong", "you're wrong" and "we could use your help". This issue is beyond public relations, it's more appropriate to consider this issue public integration because the public is inolved in governance from day 0.
Resource constrained - Anyone and everyone bashes institutions of governance. This rhetoric is characterized by the suggestion of big, bloated government or in the assertion of extended individual rights at the cost of the good of the republic. As a result governance organizations have to d more with less. Perhaps once their performance is elevated or better recognized resources will follow, but for now, they've gotta do more with less, god forbid Americans don't get another tax cut or get pork barrel spending in their state or district.
There are probably other qualities.
So, what to do? A first step (and I agree with Light here) reorganize the government to center around missions, not functions. What is within the purview of the government, what are the most important priorities? Government agencies have inertia and should be moving forward not based on what prior needs were but on what future needs are going to be.
Clean up the data and fix up the portals. There's a LOT of information, but it needs to be better organized so that governments and the public can use it better. Otherwise, why have it in the first place? With this goes, triage. Creating systems that allow valuable public interaction not only keep the public at bay regarding issues that don't concern them, but it also puts the public comfortably in the center of the debate in issues which their involvement matters greatly.
I have to think about this more.
Reviewing Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed:
An important book which sharply addresses one central question...what's the deal with the Federal Civil Service. It lacks an in-depth historical perspective as to why the Federal Civil Service came to be this way just as it only has a brief list of prescriptions. It's strength is explaining the situation on the ground, right now. And, by golly, the situation is dire.
A particular treat was analysis surrounding particular areas of reform and the difficulties those reforms might bring. Light had a particularly keen insight about streamlining the Federal Civil Service. It's not simply about cutting staff and resources. It's about trimming layers of management and moving resources way from the top of the hierarchy and towards the front-lines, where resources matter most. He also unveiled another issue, the size of the "shadow" contractor workforce, which most tend to underrate.
Light's prescriptions, though brief, are clear. The educated reader could easily piece together a slew of ideas by simply reading the analysis he provides. Whether Light does this to keep the page count low or to avoid partisan overtures is irrelevant, his text is well researched, candid and urgent. Light keeps it non-partisan but like most Americans his tone is pro-good governance.
His most important call to us is not issue specific. He bring momentum to the idea that piecemeal reform just won't do anymore and that we need a comprehensive, non-partisan, civil-service reform agenda. I sincerely hope that's a call that American's and America's elected officials will take action towards.
Stories in sacrifice
When people don't sacrifice, it seems like non-optimal outcomes happens...if all that happens is take-take-take, there eventually won't be enough left to give, right?
How can we possibly learn to do something that has the appearance of being against individual interest?
Well, here's a place to start. Why make a sacrifice? Of course, these are interrelated, but in my mind they are distinguishable cases.
-For someone else: an individual or group sacrifices for the benefit for another individual or group. (A parent commutes a longer distance so that their children can attend a better public school)
-For themselves: an individual sacrifices so they can ultimately benefit. (I sacrifice an extra helping of cake so that my health gains)
-For the future: An individual or group sacrifices so that there will be utility in the future. (A company invests in a pension fund)
Now, another assumption: this behavior is learned. Even if it's not, we make an effort to teach it, and those interventions seem like they might have a chance at forcing someone to sacrifice in an involuntary manner--which causes sacrifice to happen even if it's not dictated by the conscience of the sacrificer.
So, there are ways of sacrificing, and that behavior is [at least partially] learned or directed. There are other ways of influencing behavior, like coercion or incentives. And there are times when people sacrifice when they don't HAVE to...like giving change in your pocket to someone on the street. So why do people sacrifice when they don't have to?
Perhaps it's a question of assigning value. Maybe people see the option of sacrifice as providing more value to another person or in the long-run. This is plausible, because I'm skeptical of this suggestion because individuals as consumers have so much difficulty placing value on the choices they make or the resources they have. If value is at the core of this myster, we'd have to tepidly assume that people are extremely rational--to the point of controlling their primary urges--right?
Persuasion is another problematic explanation. Simply put, if people make sacrifices because of persuasion, they can also be persuaded out of making sacrifices or be persuaded into making bad sacrifices. Which, seems to stand up to reality I concede.
Some sacrifices seem to just happen, whcih means it's in the nature of some people in some circumstances to sacrifice or that sacrificing can be learned/cultivated.
I don't know exactly how that teaching/learning happens. I think it's by example. I just know it's important...many of our public policies will need sacrifice to be successful. When people don't sacrifice, it seems like non-optimal outcomes happens...if all that happens is take-take-take, there eventually won't be enough left to give, right?
Sheesh, what a random thought-experiment. So much for the vignettes.
The moment we stop changing
My father was trying to explain to me about a moment that happens in one's life, the moment you stop changing.
My father was trying to explain to me about a moment that happens in one's life, the moment you stop changing. It's the time you just get tired, he said, where gritting your teeth is just too laborious and apathy is not only the easy, but preferred course. It's a point, he made it seem, where an individual is so ingrained in his own identity that it's no longer malleable.
If he's correct, I hope that I have 100 years before that day. It wouldn't be fun, not growing and staying sharp. Besides that, at that moment the stunted individual becomes a danger to those around him.
If one can no longer change--that is to say become better or even just adapt--that individual starts narrowing the circumstances in which he can function in the world, as a happy healthy human being. If you lose the ability to change, you lose the capacity to make the most out of life, which seems like misery. It seems like the beginning of road which leads to hopelessness.
I want to work really hard to stay flexible and be able to change. I think that's what youth is. We all should keep adapting, growing...trying to because we are not perfect beings. We are not god.
What's love got to do with it?
It seems more the case that couples who are committed, diligent, flexible and adaptive are the ones that make it. Love certainly seems to provide energy and motivation, but in the big scheme of things is love really more than a very small part of what constitutes lasting relationships? Love doesn't pay the bills, does it?
The last time I saw the phrase in text, it was looking up lyrics to a popular Fat Joe single. And, maybe he was onto something and maybe he just liked the rhyme. Nevertheless, the line finishes: "it should be about us, it should be about trust, babe".
Logic would suggest that love either has something to do with it, or it has nothing to do with it. This is of course not necessarily what human would suggest...it's much more complicated then that.
Lately, I've been thinking that successful, fulfilling marriages and love are divorced concepts. (Note that I've been thinking about this sort of thing because of the stuff I've been reading and the engaged/newlywed couples I've been around, not to mention marriages I've been attending or hearing about). What does one really have to do with the other, besides the notion that in the contemporary western tradition loves sometimes leads to marriage.
In what I've been reading and observing however, it seems like love has little to with what helps couples go the distance. It seems more the case that couples who are committed, diligent, flexible and adaptive are the ones that make it. Love certainly seems to provide energy and motivation, but in the big scheme of things is love really more than a very small part of what constitutes lasting relationships? Love doesn't pay the bills, does it?
I guess it just seems like there are bigger things at play then love. At times, perceptions of love make about as much sense to me as perceptions of money. There's so much money in the world, it's probably one of the most common things around. But, yet it's written up at the final destination for satisfaction. Just like love. People obsess about love. It's not just that love has it's place in our lives...it consumes. People fall out of love and relationships end. People say loving each other wasn't enough, so relationships end. So, how much does it really matter?
But the obsession around love, makes me feel like it matters. There's so much buzz about love--that seems timeless, genuine and pure--it prevents me from being totally skeptical about love as an idea. The prospect of the feeling, of the supposed state of mind, keep me a romantic. And, I think it does that to many people, even though it doesn't make sense.
If love didn't matter, wouldn't we have given up on the love idea by now? Love and romance have been present in literature forever--though it's connotation and meaning have surely changed over time--so does that mean it's something that has real value?
I mean, I want it to matter. And, I don't think I'm alone in this, nor do I think this desire is solely cultural or generational. It's something we hope for, even if it's not a game-changer in lasting relationships. And perhaps that's why it's so important, not because it has "anything to do with" but because it sustains hope. And maybe hope isn't all we need either, but I think hope is one of those things I'm willing to accept, nearly blindly, as something that could have a lot to do with the good stuff.
"The Joy of Having Less"
I was have an e-mail chat with a few friends about this article, it's on a NYTimes.com blog. Two friends had this to say in response:
MS-
does a simpler life necessarily mean one alone or at a great distance from those one loves? is this a key ingredient or potentially complicating element?
i can find myself in a blissful thoreauvian state where i want to count beans and listen to nature. and then i can find myself feeling like an anne sexton poem where i want to fuse my bones to another person or series of person in order to feel alive.
JH-
I also have some criticism regarding the fact that not everyone's socioeconomic situations lend themselves to being able to up and move. And, I too am a person who needs to be surrounded by people that I know and love but at the same time I really enjoy solitude and independence. It's a balance. I do think that different types of people reading an essay like this can pull what they are inspired by into their own experience -- what better can an essay do than that?
Me-
I think you're knocking on the door of something interesting and controversial, here:
"I do think that different types of people reading an essay like this can pull what they are inspired by into their own experience -- what better can an essay do than that?"
Forgive me if I'm interpreting incorrectly, but I think you mean--perhaps implicitly--that people can kind of take things and their own experiences determines what makes them happy. That happiness is something determined by an individual or at an individual level. Different people like different things. Maybe you didn't mean this towards "what makes a happy life?" at all, or didn't mean it as strongly as I've put it...but I'll leave it that way to illustrate a contrasting viewpoint.
I think it's an open question: are people made happy by a similar menu of activities, occurrences, habits or behaviors or does the pursuit of happiness depend mostly on the individual? I'm not so sure that individual characteristics matter. Why? Because it seems like the "happy people" have many activities, occurrences, habits and behaviors in common...a few simple things seem to make them happy, like some of the following:
Have good friends
Have work that you enjoy or find meaningful
Show love and commitment to your family and have sex with your spouse, often.
Have proper rest and nutrition
Give back to your community
Learn
Exercise
Live a life without excess
Follow the golden rule
The list goes on, but not for very long. And I'd like to emphasize...these things are pretty darn simple, no? They're almost timeless, which in my mind makes them more applicable and believable.
But, I think there's an argument to be made for people discovering and finding what makes them happy. I'll let someone else make it if it pleases them. If not, we wasted too much time agonizing over majors and careers ;)="http:>
Quick thought about weddings
I was mistaken for interpreting weddings as a moment for the splitting and suturing of relationships into a new whole. They are rather the celebration of something anew, instead of rearranging lives they are instances where a new, two-seated life is created.
Quickly, my attitudes about weddings changed a bit this weekend. They are not, steely affairs where the Bride's posse relinquishes the ability to be caretakers of the daughter and the demarcation of the Groom's buddies losing a direct link to their friend. This sentiment seems silly, yes, but believe me...it's all the more real the closer you get to the officiated parties.
Rather, weddings are a treasure of a celebration. They commemorate a timeless, sacred human bond of one person to another. That's a big deal, whether it's between friends, partners, or family members, because those bonds--ones that really bind--don't come around all that often.
I was mistaken for interpreting weddings as a moment for the splitting and suturing of relationships into a new whole. They are rather the celebration of something anew, instead of rearranging lives they are instances where a new, two-seated life is created.
A straight-forward observation, yes. Was a little slow on the uptake.
Concluding Thoughts on Peru
I noticed immediately, the idiosyncracy that distinguishes the USA from Peru. It wasn't even difficult. All it took was a staple of our culture: semi-fast food.
I was at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, waiting for a signature. I'd come to expect that counter service at places like Cosi would be decent at best. Most of the folks that have taken my order there, at any location across the country, don't seem to take pride in what they're doing. The same goes at 4/5 similar establishments. The woman didn't look me in the eye and she stuck to the script.
This is worlds apart from Peru. The people in Peru don't stick to the script, they make mistakes. They look you in the eye, and they have sincerety in their voices when they speak with you. Of course, this might have been a product of necessity (since we were gringos and people could barely understand our spanish)...but I don't think it was. In Peru every meal was fresh and everyone seemed to take pride in their service. All places were slow serving and they had limited menus unless the establishments had obviously western influence. Often times the owner/proprietor would be sitting with guests and would come to check on us, greet us at the door and generally be visible.
The difference in food service between the countries indicates a lot. The difference indicates our priorities as cultures, I think.
Peruvians really seem to value relationships, quality and intimate person interaction. In the USA we seem to value choice, predictability and efficiency. Both campus are obviously legitimate, but different.
I think our cultures could stand to learn from eachother. Which is hard for us in America to do because of our status in the world. We lead many things in the world, so we don't always get to learn from the cultures we're influencing...but we must. We're certainly not perfect here, even though there's a tremendous amount of pragamatism and idealism in our culture.
But as much as we're not perfect, we are leaders who yield strong influence abroad. Our music, our language and our style is everywhere. Our instutiutions are ever-present: democracy, republican government, ESPN...whatever. The world is still watching us.
Because of that influence and leadership we still hold, at least in the cultural and political realm, even though we may hold less influence economically...we must use that influence and leadership for good. If we do something, the world will follow us. Because of that we have to live up to the idealized versions of our ideals. If we do not, the world will follow by not living up to high standards. If we do not, we won't be true to ourselves, either.
Though, I really feel we're having an identity crisis as a nation. We don't know what's important to us as a nation, which is scary. If we don't know who we are and what we want, how are we going to lead other, less prosperious or less established nations.
Here's what I think is most important. We need people to do an exercise like this...so we can figure out who we are. A lot of people (my parents included) have never really thought about these things. It's up to us now to figure it out.
Things that really matter - divided into 4 categories. I was kind of inspired by a comic strip in Neal Strauss's Emergency.
Sound Mind - This means education and lifelong learning. I think this also assumes that education and reflection can't happen when a war or violence is going on in once's vicinity. Finally, with a sound mind, engaging oneself in work that's challenging, meaningful and that profilerates the beauty in the world also applies.
Sound Body - This means treat your body well. Not throwing one's body into imminent unavoidable danger, exercising and having sex are all important here. It's making our physical surroundings habitable too...greenies, this matters to you.
Intact Spirit - Inner peace and making sense of God and his/her role in our spiritual and physical lives. Finally, trying to grasp our mortality. This obviously requires freedom of religion and an intense emphasis on fair, reasonable empathetic dialogue.
Meaningful Relationships - Having friends and family and spending time with them. Sharing life with other people. I think what also fits here is "befriending strangers" and helping people who need help.
To me, these things are what's most important...things that matter flow from these four things for the most part, I hope. I think Americans at-large probabaly share some of these ideas too. Regardless, I hope as a nation we can understand the things that are really important to us then govern ourselves in accordance with these aspirations, values and ideas.
-nt
Our Traces
It makes me wonder, what do our cities say about us? Our homes? Our website history? Even the stuff we generally carry on our persons.
@ The Ruins of Macchu Picchu in the Guardhouse, 814pm
The Ruins at Macchu Picchu are surprisingly simple. There´s farmland, an enormous main square, many temples, a guardhouse, an observatory, urban residential area and it´s hidden deep in the Andes Mountains to be insulated from intruders. That´s presumably all the stuff that REALLY mattered to them. There are no shops nor hospitals nor athletic stadiums. I consider it a window into the Incan mindset and value system.
It makes me wonder, what do our cities say about us? Our homes? Our website history? Even the stuff we generally carry on our persons.
These things tell a lot about who we are: what we spend our time on, the things we leave behind and the stories we tell. I hope they reveal good things.
Now to consider, what matters to me given my time, my possessions and/or legacy and stories?
---Just got back to Cusco. Our hostel is like a freshman dorm full of people who have cabin fever, and there´s a bar upstairs called the Crazy Llama. Uh oh.