What is It REALLY all about?

We often hear the phrase, “That’s what it’s all about” in reference to honor, taking care of our families, winning, doing the best we can, or whatever – even in songs: “You do the hokey pokey, and you turn yourself around, that’s what it’s all about.”  And when we say or hear “That’s what it’s all about,” we understand that “It” probably isn’t ALL about winning, or the hokey pokey (or whatever.) That said, is it reasonable to ask: “What is ‘It’ really ‘ALL’ about?”  Wise men and women have indeed given this question a lot of thought over the millennia.

The Holy Grail in moral philosophy is a single principle that serves as a touchstone for resolving all moral dilemmas, and thereby offering us a glimpse into that elusive ‘meaning of life.’  Classical philosophers (St Augustine, Cicero, St Thomas, among others) called this single principle the “Summum Bonum” or the highest good, that which is good in and of itself, contains all other goods, and from which all other goods are derived.   The Summum Bonum is the purpose, the goal, the description of the life best lived.   In their quest for this first principle, different philosophers and religious thinkers have arrived at various versions of what they believed to be the Summum Bonum.    

Over the years, I’ve made a list of different visions of this source principle I’ve encountered in my reading and studies.    This is where my list stands today, and I offer it as a simple man’s necessarily over-simplification of some very nuanced ideas, which I can only pretend to understand. But here is what I’ve found:

     Excellence/Fulfillment/Wisdom – Aristotle

     Moral Duty – Immanuel Kant

     Quality – Robert Pirsig (author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)

     Power (properly applied) – Frederick Nietzsche/Robert Adler 

     Pleasure (broadly conceived)– Sigmund Freud  

     Enlightenment – Buddha

    The moment (suspending rationality) - Zen Buddhism

    Dignity/Honor – The Stoics

     The greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number – Jeremy Bentham/John Stuart Mill

     Authentic and passionate commitment – Albert Camus, Martin Heidegger

     Don’t Worry. Be Happy – Meher Baba

     Self-Actualization – Abraham Mazlow

     Self-Actualization thru one’s work – Karl Marx

     Beauty -  James Joyce, Friedrich Schiller

     Kindness/compassion/love - Dalai Lama, Buddha, Christ

You’ll note that some of the ‘first principles’ on this list are oriented toward self-development, while others are oriented more toward how we relate and interact with others.    There is clearly much overlap in these different approaches, but there are also clearly values, life choices and life-styles unique to each.  Each speaks to a different perspective on what makes us human and what human excellence looks like.

Some will argue that God has to be on this list, since a relationship with God or Christ or another religious leader is the Summum Bonum in most religious traditions.  I agree, but I choose to separate matters of faith from matters of the mind and reason.  For the theist, the Summum Bonum is necessarily a reflection of God’s will; for the atheist or agnostic, it is arrived at through reason and empirical observation.  I contend that these two perspectives are not mutually exclusive.

Probably my favorite interpretation of ‘what It’s all about’ is from the Roman poet Lucretius.   In his  search for the key to the life well lived, he studied all of the great thinkers and philosophers of his era, and distilled what he learned into two maxims:  “It is better to love than to hate,” and “Live life fully, even if imperfectly.”

For many of us, this may be simply a theoretical question of little ‘practical’ import.  For others, and for the individuals and traditions associated with the different first principles listed above, this is a life-defining, existential question:   What is the one most important value I stand for, live for, strive for, and am willing to die for?  Why am I here?  It is a question that many of us consider more and more as we get older.  But had you asked me that question as a young man, I would have responded with a wry smile, “What’s it all about?  That’s easy:  Eat. F$@#. Skydive!”

Hmmm….. Maybe “Having Fun” also needs to be on that list.  You know: “You do the hokey pokey, and you turn yourself around, that’s what it’s all about.”  :) 

Note: This list of different interpretations of the ultimate good reminded me of the list of different religions’ versions of the Golden Rule  . Or more amusingly, the list of different religions’ interpretations of Shit happens . (click hotlinks)

In Praise of Mediocrity

Mediocre Marathon Runners

I use this title partly in jest.   ‘Mediocrity’ is, almost by definition, that which is not ‘praiseworthy.’  And yet in my comments that follow, I hope to point out that what appears to us as mediocre does not automatically warrant derision or embarrassment.  There is an important place for mediocrity in this world, and often there is much to be celebrated in the mediocre. And I’m proud of my contributions to that great sea of mediocrity that sustains us all!I recently presented myself to my Toastmasters club as ‘the Prince of Mediocrity,’ declaring that I am mediocre at more activities that anyone else I know.  My comments were partly in jest – one evaluator accused me of false modesty, and described my presentation as an example of ‘overstated understatement.’  And yet it is true – I have chosen the path of being just OK, or at best, ‘pretty good’ at a number of activities, and not truly excellent at any.

Mediocre is in contrast to the truly excellent – a level of achievement attained by great talent, combined with great effort. Malcolm Gladwell, in his book  Outliers and Geoff Colvin in his book Talent is Overrated, claim that 10,000 hours of focussed hard work and practice are necessary to achieve true excellence in any field.  We admire on television and on youtube those who perform at the highest levels in sports, movies, the arts.  In newspapers, magazines, and books we are inspired by the persistence, greatness of spirit, and the achievements of the great in politics, science and ideas, exploration, and even, everyday life.   We are not particularly interested in the modest achievements of those with common talent, or limited drive and persistence (though  the popularitiy of The Jersey Shore may argue this point.)  We are surrounded by mediocrity in our day-to-day lives, we might say.  It is uninspiring and uninteresting.  So what is there to praise about it?

Mediocrity is so very human.  All of us, even the great, are mediocre at much of what we do – whether it be cooking, automobile repair or maintenance, housekeeping, computer skills, even personal hygiene and diet.  And we have to accept that about ourselves, or be burdened with guilt and stress.   Though mediocrity is not the pinnacle of achievement,  it is not necessarily to be mocked, except perhaps in those who promise and claim excellence, and deliver much less.

Or when we are laughing at ourselves and our own mediocre efforts, talents,  and achievements – a healthy sense of humor and humility are essential to appreciating the mediocrity in our lives.

Those who will accept nothing less than excellence, for whom mediocrity is simply unacceptable, are often loath to enter into any activity at which they may not excel.  “If it’s worth doing at all,” they say,  “it’s worth doing well.”  But how many things can we truly do well?   My counter to that aphorism might be:  “Not everything that is worth doing, is worth doing well.”  Many over-achievers will not take up golf, fitness, music, art, kayaking, whatever, because they are afraid to be associated with the almost inevitable mediocre performance that comes with entry into any of these activities.  Accepting mediocrity opens the door to trying new activities.

I also pity those who spend their lives regretting excellence not achieved. Remember Terry Malloy, the former boxer played by Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront.  Who can forget his anguished cry, “I coulda been a contender”?  We all know people who have lived their whole lives disappointed at the excellence they never achieved, rather than enjoying what (mediocre) achievements they may have had, and what good fortune did come their way.  Accepting mediocrity helps us to accept ourselves, and appreciate our lives, even when we may not have been at our best.

Achieving true excellence demands sacrifice and can come at great cost.  Life, literature, and history are full of examples of heroes who attained a very high level of excellence - indeed ‘GREATNESS’ – in one field, while the rest of their lives were a shambles.  Think of Hemingway. Or Ernest Shackleton. Or Mickey Mantle.  Or perhaps Mike Tyson, Tiger Woods, or Charlie Sheen.  In Hollywood, great actors whose lives are NOT a mess seem to be an exception.   While we may praise their ‘excellence,’  it is with reservation and caveat.  A willingness to accept and even appreciate something less than excellence might open these heroes’ eyes to the value of the rest of life, outside their field of excellence.

And then there are those who sit on the sidelines and criticize, only respecting ‘excellence,’ while they ridicule those who may not be excelling.    We are reminded of Teddy Roosevelt’s “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.”

Those of us who have learned to accept mediocrity, can enjoy a mediocre round of golf, without it ruining our whole day. Or a mediocre workout, or even a mediocre performance in a competition.  We will take on a new challenge, even when we are unlikely to excel.  We have learned to laugh at and accept less than stellar performance, learn from it, and move on.  Again we return to Teddy Roosevelt “The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds.”

“Who strives valiantly…”  may be a clue.  Mediocre results are much easier to accept, and even praise, in those who have striven valiantly.  Maybe it’s because I’m well into middle age – but there are only a few things for which I’ll ‘strive valiantly’ – and I pick those battles carefully.  In the remainder of my endeavors, I may strive…but depending on how I feel and what’s at stake, often not valiantly.    Mediocre effort is NOT acceptable however, if one has promised a valiant effort, or committed to a specific result, or when the lives, and well-being of others are at stake.  Those cases demand a valiant effort, and anything less deserves our contempt.

We mediocritites (don’t bother to look it up) play an important role in this world:  It is we who help inspire and motivate others to doggedly pursue excellence.  It is we who make the truly excellent look good.  Without the rest of us, there would be no one against whom the great could be judged as ‘truly excellent.’  As Walter Stack, an old long distance runner of the 70’s once said, “My role here is to help the rest of you guys to look good.”

We mediocritites make the world go round, supporting, inspiring, and cheering on those who are truly excellent.  When the strivers say that we are not fulfilling our potential by setting our bar too low, we just laugh and go have another drink, and wish them well – and remind them that there isn’t a lot of room at the top – somebody has to hold up the bottom of the pyramid.

The reality is that, as we get older, everything we do seems to slide toward mediocrity – except hopefully, our attitude and our wisdom.  The happiest people in middle age and beyond have come to terms with mediocre performance as part of life – not to be lamented, but to give depth to those rare occasions when we do something truly exceptional. As a golfer, I enjoy watching the Champions Tour, watching former greats humbled, but with a smile on their face, as they roll with a bad round and congratulate whomever may be having a good, or even a great day. In fact I suppose that is one of the things I like about golf – if you can’t live with mediocrity, you have no business playing golf.

In praising mediocrity, we are enjoying the glass half-full – which is so much of what life offers us, rather than cursing that same half-empty glass.  If we can’t enjoy mediocrity, and laugh along with our own foibles and those of others, then there isn’t much joy to be had.  The truly excellent is, by its nature, rare and unusual.

We mediocritites are life’s decathletes…we play at a number of different activities, and though we may not excel at any of them, we enjoy playing.  We set our bar where WE want to set it, and cheer ourselves on when we get over our low bar.   Somehow I believe taking on a variety of activities creates a whole (person) who is more than the sum of his mediocre parts.  Our place “shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” We are in the arena, and to those who may mock us for not having striven valiantly or achieved excellence, I respond, ‘Living well is the best revenge.’

So, how’s that for a mediocre essay? 

Life-Balance – Is it over-rated?

I’m not sure, but life- balance may be over-rated.

Think about it. Who are the people who have achieved great things in life?  Did they have balance in their lives?  Do you get to be President of the United States by having balance in your life?  Do Bill Gates or Warren Buffet have balance in their lives?   Did Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Marie Curie, or Leonardo da Vinci have balance in their lives?  Or our military leaders – McArthur, Eisenhower, Patton, Nimitz, Halsey, or today Patreaus or McChrystal?   Do they talk about the balance in their lives?  No.  These are passionate and focused people.

Where does ‘balance’ fit in with Great Responsibility and Great Achievement?    Do we refuse responsibility for the lives of others, the responsibility for the security of the nation, or to bring great talent to bear to move humanity forward in order to maintain balance in our lives?  Do we abrogate great responsibility for life-balance?  Sounds somewhat selfish, doesn’t it?

“Well, you may have a point, but …”

It seems that the only people who talk about ‘life-balance’ are people who have already achieved what they were going to achieve in life. They are ready to slow down, rest on their laurels, and then we have to listen to them sanctimoniously preach to the rest of us how important it is to have life balance.  Are we to take them seriously? Sounds somewhat hypocritical doesn’t it?

“Well, yes but…”

Or we hear about ‘life-balance’ from people who have never really achieved anything of note, and chose ‘balance’ instead.  They may even use balance as an excuse for never having made a real difference.  They don’t acknowledge that their balanced lives were made possible by people who didn’t have balance in theirs. Sound somewhat short sighted, doesn’t it?

“Perhaps, but…”

Isn’t life really about passion, commitment, and enthusiasm?  People who achieve great things and move humanity forward do so by pursuing their passion with a single-minded focus.   Remember that memorable quote from the movie The Highlander, “I’d rather burn out than fade away.”  A  German Philosopher (Hegel) once said that ‘the great are seldom good,’ meaning that those who dare to be great follow a different set of rules than conventional society demands of the rest of us.   Balance works well for those who can’t stand the heat, who want to lope along in the outside lane, and cede the prize to those with the ambition, drive and energy to run hard on the inside.  Slow down to smell the roses, and you better move to the outside lane or you’ll get run over.  He who hesitates is lost.  Balance is the consolation prize for those who don’t have the gumption to reach for the golden ring….

“Come on now.  Aren’t we being a little harsh?”

Balance is boring.   Who wants to watch a movie about someone who has his or her life in balance?  Where is the story, the drama, excitement, passion, the thrills, the yucks?     Isn’t the impulse to balance the impulse to be well-balanced ‘sheep?’    Wouldn’t you rather be one of the sheepdogs, committed and  focused on protecting  the sheep,  or one of the wolves who go after our enemies and bring home the bacon?  Let the well-balanced sheep hide in their pens, and/or be led to the slaughter….balance is for prey and herbivores.   Choose instead to be a predator and a carnivore!

 Ok! OK! We get your point…and yet…something just doesn’t feel completely right about all this fist pumping, testosterone-driven posturing….

———————

The problem with the above pseudo-conversation is that one doesn’t choose between passion and balance.  The good life has both – and how much of each will be different for each of us, at different times, in different contexts.

Yes, balance may be stasis, and yes, there are many who will seek and stay in the safe harbor.  There are those who are afraid of the risk of putting one’s beliefs, one’s passions, oneself on the line.  It is true that those who drive and lead society are risk takers, heroic, passionate, and driven.  And we respect and admire them.  And perhaps we are them.  But is that all we want?  All the time?

Balance DOES have its place, even for the ambitious and the driven.    Imbalance  (stress) can be a source of creative tension, and provide us motivation and energy to rise to a challenge and perform at our best.  And when we feel that passion, or when we are fulfilling an important commitment, or serving a need for the greater good, passion, commitment, focus will certainly weigh more, and the fulcrum of the life-balance  scale will shift dramatically toward meeting that need.  There may be periods when the only weight on the other side of the scale may be sleep and infrequent, quiet periods with a friend or loved one. 

And then we need to recover – consolidate our gains, assess our wins and losses, heal, and gird our loins for whatever comes next.  For the heroic, and even for the more humble of us, I contend that life-balance is a temporary state that some of us are lucky enough to experience with some regularity in our lives.   But it is a temporary state, when all is in synch…an interlude between periods of challenge, commitment and focus….even for those who choose to run in the slow lane.   It is temporary….until the next challenge.

Marshall Goldsmith, one of the world’s most famous executive coaches, relates how many very successful CEO’s  he coaches struggle to find balance and meaning in their lives after having achieved all the prestige, power, and money they want.  It’s almost a caricature – overweight, high blood pressure, 2^nd, 3^rd,  or 4th marriage, tons of money, homes and yachts around the country, and now what? Another yacht?

A well balanced life needs passion, commitment, and focus, as well as periods of quiet joy, a meaningful avocation, and relaxed time with friends and loved ones.  The balance between passion and quiet or distracted relaxation is different for each of us, in different contexts and different times in our lives. Staying out of balance for too long has its price.

I see ‘life balance’ as an account into which we make deposits over a lifetime.  There are (slower) periods when we can deposit more, and crazy periods when we struggle just to keep our heads above water, and have little left to put into our ‘life balance account.’  We all know, and know of, people who have needed to draw on a life balance account, and found it empty.  It is sad to see.  Whatever we are able to deposit into our life-balance account accrues interest over a lifetime, providing dividends that we can draw on when we need them – especially when we get older and seek to balance the energy and passion of our youth with the perspective and wisdom of experience. 

And in the end, we all break even anyway.

Resilience

“Resilience” is a new buzzword I’m seeing these days in a many different contexts.   We need to develop “systems resilience” to deal with potential cyber attacks.  We need more “resilient communities” to prepare for tragedy and the unexpected.  The government is creating programs to help develop “family resilience” to better cope with the stresses of military life. And the military seeks to develop “resilient soldiers,” less susceptible to traumatic stress disorder, better prepared to positively respond to stress and change. 

Resilience is clearly a good thing. So what exactly is it, and how do we get some?

Like many things, resilience is both simple and complex.  In essence, it seems to come down to an ability to cope, and to respond well to adversity and stress.  The opposite of resilient  might be ‘fragile,’ ‘rigid,’ ‘delicate,’ or even ‘sensitive.’   Persistence is usually, but not always, associated with resilience.

When we talk about people being resilient, we really have to define the context, since resilience manifests itself differently in different contexts.   Different contexts may demand physical, mental, emotional, intellectual, spiritual or other types of resilience – or some of each –  to respond to different types of adversity.    Being resilient in one context does not assume resilience in another.  We’ve all seen people who may be mentally and physically very resilient in combat or high-stress environments (physical/mental resilience), but who emotionally over-react or are unbending with their families and friends (emotional/social resilience).   My graduate students are very successful in their personal and professional lives, but sometimes have views of the world that are quite rigid.  Graduate school seeks to develop ‘intellectual resilience’ by forcing students out of comfortable mental models, to try on different viewpoints and different ways of thinking.

So how does one become more ‘resilient?’

Aristotle said that if you want to become courageous, you need to do things that require courage.  He would say the same thing about resilience.  One must be willing to get out of one’s comfort-zone, and stretch one’s ability to adapt to a different environment, if one wants to develop greater resilience under stress or adversity.  In other words, one must subject oneself to the stress of not being comfortable.  In today’s culture, there is a temptation to find a comfortable niche, settle into a ‘comfort-zone’ and fight never to leave it.   We commit to career, marriage, family, community, mortgage – what one young friend of mine called  ‘the whole catastrophe.’    We seek stability, predictability, and… we get comfortable.

To stay nimble and resilient, we must occassionally force ourselves into endeavors and environments where we are not in complete control – and force ourselves to adapt.  We must be willing to at least consider, and accept with some equanimity,  the possibility that the things we count on can be taken away – our job, our money, lifestyle, health, friends, loved ones, our title and our reputation.   And we must be willing to ask ourselves that ‘existential’ question:  What is left, and who are we without those things?

To step out of our comfort-zone, we risk failure. Only by trying and failing, and trying again, do we develop the resilience to deal with things happening in a way that does not suit us.  Without learning to deal with failure, there can be no resilience.  Not getting what we want means to suffer, and, as the Greeks believed, wisdom only comes through suffering. 

In dealing with difficulties and discomfort, we frequently use something called ‘self talk’ as a psychological tool to help ourselves deal with  difficult circumstances.  Self-talk has been shown to actually change the way we think, behave, and perceive our environment. “I can do this.”  “This too shall pass.”  “This is my opportunity.” “This is God’s will (or this is my fate).  I must deal with this as best I can.” “I am strong.”   ”I am confident.”  Prayer is a form of self talk.  A wise person once warned against asking God to give us the result we want, recommending instead that we pray for the strength (resilience) to deal with what He gives us.

My old friend Master Chief Will Guild suggested two essentials to resilience:  a sense of humor and love.  A sense of humor gets us outside of ourselves and our own ego-driven self absorption.  It can deflate the pressures of fear, anger, panic and resentment.  Love likewise gets us outside of the immediacy of our personal anxiety– loving others, in spite of their failings, and loving ourselves, in spite of our failings. Indeed, Aristotle saw self-love, or ‘proper pride’ as a fundamental virtue.   Maintaining our self-respect and personal sense of dignity, when all is going wrong, is essential to a resilient response to challenge and adversity.  Without self respect and ‘proper pride,’ collapse in the face of adversity is predictable.

SEAL training is very much about developing physical and mental resilience to respond to adversity in battle or special operations.  SEAL basic training creates a somewhat artificial adversity in a controlled training environment that serves as a crucible to develop the resilience needed to respond well to the real fear and adversity of combat.  Master Chief Guild used to teach SEAL trainees four key techniques for developing the resilience necessary to succeed at their baic training, and by extension, in combat. These are variations on what sports psychologists teach to professional athletes to help them perform their best under stress and pressure.

First, maintain a positive attitude – believe in yourself, keep your sense of humor, and use self talk to stay positive. 

Second, learn positive visualization. Visualize and believe in your own success, whatever that looks like. Positive visualization prepares us mentally for the challenge at hand, and for what it feels like to succeed. 

Third, practice segmentation.  Break the challenge you are facing into bite-size goals -– this event, this day. Set simple, achievable, short term goals. Don’t look beyond getting through the challenge of the moment, the event, or the day.

Fourth, learn arousal control.  Learn techniques to calm yourself when fear, panic and anxiety seem ready to overwhelm you.  These techniques include meditation, deep breathing, heart-rate management.  And again, self talk.

The best literature I’ve read on resilience is from the Roman Stoics and from Viktor Frankl in his classic short book, Man’s Search for Meaning.  Vadm Stockdale wrote extensively about how Stoicism helped him survive seven years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.  Stoicism divides the world into two spheres – things we can control, and things we can’t.  The Stoic believes that we develop psychic resilience (and serenity) by learning to accept fate’s dictates, assuming full responsibility for our actions and attitudes, and developing the “wisdom to know the difference” between what we have to accept and what we can affect.  Viktor Frankl’s book is about the resilience that comes from having a purpose for living – a goal for one’s life.  This greater sense of purpose provides the strength and motivation to overcome life’s challenges.  Man’s Search for Meaning is about how Frankl found meaning in his suffering in a German concentration camp, and how his belief in his own life’s purpose was key to his survival.  Both Stockdale and Frankl would argue that a strong will to adapt, survive, and prevail is essential.

In conclusion, there is much that can be said and written about resilience.   It is key to success and survival in dynamic, stressful, and rapidly changing environments.  As with leadership and character, resilience seems to be at least partly innate – some people are naturally more resilient and adaptable than others, and some people seem to be born with a stronger will to succeed.  But as with character and leadership, resilience and strength of will can be improved through experience, training and education.   We can intentionally develop more flexible mental models, a broader perspective, and we can learn to imagine things as different than they are.     It can help a lot to have a resilient and inspiring teacher, leader, or mentor who believes in us. 

It is useful to remember that Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection put a very high premium on resilience.

The Head and the Heart

A reading group I’m in recently read Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club.   It was great fun, and in thinking about the book, it occurred to me that one way to consider Palahniuk’s message was in terms of the Head versus the Heart.  The narrator of the book, the Ed Norton character in the movie, is all ‘Head’ following the rules, very practical, living life according to the popular formula for success.  And his life is passionless, boring, and lacks meaning for him.  Then Tyler Durden – the Brad Pitt character – comes into his life, spouting aphorisms of freedom, passion, rebellion,  and ‘Heart.’   The rest of the book CAN be understood as a battle between Head and Heart – reason and common sense and conformity to social values vs unrestrained freedom, spontaneity, and passion.  There are of course many ways to read and interpret this very clever and creative book, but this is one. More of my thoughts on Fight Club at bob’s books.

It also occurred to me that “Head vs Heart” can also be a construct for thinking about how we interact with our own world.  Head = dispassionate reason and logic, the practicalities of taking care of business, meeting obligations to others and society.  Heart = emotion, passion, capacity for joy, love, and sadness, for fulfillment in life, as well as existential angst and unhappiness.  Most of us are consciously or unconsciously seeking equilibrium between the two:  What is that equilibrium?  I think it is different for each of us, and different at different points in our lives.  Life and experience give us a better idea of our own personal ‘sweet-spot,’ but it is elusive.   And we must beware of becoming too comfortable if/when we think we’ve found our ‘sweet spot.’  A ‘disaster’ is always right around the corner. 

Particularly be careful of too much practicality, too much comfort and routine  – too much Head – in one’s life.  The ‘Heart’ is lying in ambush.

And when we are very angry, or depressed, or when we fall in love (or infatuation) our ‘Head’ is disempowered and its voice is weak and ineffective against the ‘logic’ of the Heart.

Have you ever fallen ‘in love’ with someone who you KNEW was not the right person, or ‘a good idea?’ And noticed how ineffective the Head is in talking you out of those stars in your eyes?

 “The Heart has reasons that reason doesn’t understand.” (Jacques Benigne Bossuel)

I  think that one of Palahniuk’s key messages in Fight Club is the danger of imbalance, the danger of sliding toward an extreme on either end of the Head-Heart spectrum.  The Ed Norton character represents the modern extreme of conformity to social norms; Brad Pitt and Tyler Durden the extremes of passion and rebellion.   A more nuanced view of too much ‘Head’ can be found in Remains of the Day – the excessive worship of professional competence and achievement,  about which I wrote earlier in this blog.   This Head-Heart dichotomy has been a theme of philosophy and literature for millennia.

The Greeks and Romans insisted that the Head rule the Heart.  This was a key theme in both Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophies, both of whom believed strongly that reason must rule emotion if one is to  understand the world and live ‘the good life.’  The Roman Stoics took this idea even further, insisting that reason can also tell the heart how to feel, and with an act of will, our mind can force the heart to do its bidding and have attitudes and feelings that protect the human being from the vicissitudes of a world we can’t control.  The Existential philosophers of the 19^th and 20^th century roundly rejected that view, and argued that passion, commitment, and rebellion against conformity are what give life meaning and value.  Nietzsche in particular, railed against Socrates and the Stoics, and argued that each of us should follow our heart to find our own meaning and place in life – regardless of what ‘the herd’ claims ‘makes sense.’   He claimed that in the truly free man, the Heart must rule the Head. Reason and practicality he saw as the hand-maidens of social convention and ‘herd mentality.’   Ayn Rand however embraced reason in her objectivist philosophy, which argues for ‘enlightened self-interest.’  Her philosophy (I believe) echoes and reinterprets Aristotle, and even the Stoics, claiming that the ‘proper’ application of reason is very non-conformist and liberating.  You decide.

OK, so what? 

So far, I’m playing a ‘Head game,’ examining what Palahniuk was trying to say, looking at various possibilities, connecting them to other authors and intellectual constructs.  The ‘Heart game’ would be to ask that ‘existential’ question, “How does this apply to me and my life?”  Is Palahniuk accusing me, and can I defend myself?   As I was reading Fight Club, I kept reading between the lines, ‘j’accuse, j’accuse, j’accuse!’ (French for ‘I accuse (you)’ and a common expression in some literature). 

And so, I ask myself,  “Where am I on that Head-Heart continuum and am I happy with that place? “ Today?   In general?   The answer would be my response to ‘j’accuse.’

And where are you, dear reader?  Too comfortable?  Is the heart lying in ambush? Or perhaps comatose?   Or is the Heart passionately leading a pointless, and destructive crusade, and the Head is either silent, or shouting futilely ‘wake up- you idiot!’  Or are you (I hope) dancing around the sweet spot of balance -  what Aristotle might have (but didn’t) refer to as ‘the golden mean?’

You decide.  Or do you?  It is, after all, your life.

———————–

For insightful quotes on ‘the Heart,’ go to: http://thinkexist.com/quotations/heart/ 

For interesting quotes on ‘the Head,’ go to http://thinkexist.com/quotations/reason/

The Iphone – like a moth to a flame….

Like a moth drawn to the flame, I think it may be time for me to get an Iphone.  But I’m worried – not scared –just worried.  I suffer from AADD – Adult Attention Deficit Disorder – and I can drive people around me crazy with my distractions.   Staying focused on chores and routine tasks, and keeping things in order (to include my life) are not my forte.   My filing system is a stack of papers covering my U-shaped desk and surrounding my computer – I just don’tt seem to get around to sorting them out.  I am drawn to interruptions and distractions:   to answer the phone,  to check my email (again), to  get a cup of coffee, to amble into the offices of my workmates to discuss how we make our world a better place.    In Meyers Briggs terms, I am an ENFP – a dreamer, an idealist, someone who does poorly at the discipline of managing the details necessary to keep things working well, because I am easily distracted by ….whatever.

So then, why get an Iphone and carry this little distraction generating gismo around with me everywhere I go?  Am I the alcoholic who takes his laptop to the bar to do his work, or the overweight, junk-food addict sitting at McDonalds thinking about a healthier lifestyle,  or the sex addict trying to build meaningful relationships in an erotic bar?  Hmmm.. could be….

But I’m going to get an Iphone anyway.  Because I (think I) can handle it!

I believe that these 3 and 4G devices are ushering in a new era in our culture, and I don’t want to be left behind.  I want to play.  I want to stay ‘in the game.’   There are those who have eschewed email, cell phones, and the internet – I respect those who have made that choice out of principle rather than fear, but I am not one of them.  I need people, and want to be part of the give and take of social interaction in my own culture, to fulfill my own need to engage with the world.  Like everyone else (yes, like the alcoholic who thinks s/he can be just a social drinker),   I still think I can handle the distractions of the Iphone.

The simple answer is that I want to be part of our busy culture and society – and I still think I can do it on my own terms.

I believe that the ‘smart phone’ is becoming  such a ubiquitous part of our culture, that it will soon become as essential to playing in the mainstream of American culture as an email account, wide band internet access and a cell phone are today.

There is a debate raging in the blogosphere about the good and the bad of technology.  L. Gordon Crovitz sums up the discussion well in a short column in the Wall Street Journal (23 Aug )  “Is Technology Good or Bad? Yes.”  In her column of 21 Aug, “Information Overload is Nothing New,” Peggy Noonan  pointed out that the debate about the dangers of information overload goes back at least as far as the Roman Empire.  Many of us are thinking about the danters and unintended consequences that may come with these powerful new capabilities.   Perhaps a modern-day Tolkien should write a trilogy, “The Lord of the Smart-phone” in which instant easy access to well organized information, tailored to your own personal education, culture and needs is the ‘ring.’  Is Steve Jobs Gollum? Am I?

I acknowledge that there are wise, well adjusted and spiritual people who have withdrawn to the edges of our culture and live happily at a safe distance from frenetic activity, new opportunities, exciting possibilities and all the resulting stress and craziness.  These ‘outsiders’ watch and shake their heads with little sympathy, and perhaps even less understanding.    I hope to join them someday, out on the edges of our culture, to watch and to smile.

But not yet.  I’m reminded of St Augustine’s prayer, “Lord, make me chaste, just not yet.”

For the time being, continuing to play in the world of frenetic activity will scratch my itch to stay involved in the American ‘game of life,’ to be engaged with a wide array of people in my own culture.  I hope to gain some insights into just what is going on  – and I recognize that I may also be adding un-necessary stress and anxiety to my life – as so often happens.

Like a moth, I am drawn to the flame.  My intent is to fly around it, enjoy its heat and light, without burning my wings….we’ll see.

I will get an Iphone in the next month or so….Stay tuned.  Bob

Party for the Mind

I recently attended the third in a series of (what I call) ‘parties for the mind,’ hosted jointly by a good friend who is a captain in the Marine Corps, and a gentleman he considers his ‘life coach’ – a well-to-do retired gentleman with a salty sense of humor, who had served with the Marines in WW2 and still considers himself a Marine at heart. A couple of times a year, these two bring in a diverse group of ‘thinking friends’ for a different kind of gathering – not only to enjoy each other’s company, but also to stimulate thought and discussion. The format is as follows: The party begins like most parties – guests arrive and are welcomed, and then head to the hors d’ouvres and drinks where they greet old friends and introduce themselves to people they don’t know. After about 45 minutes or so, everyone is asked to sit down, and a ‘featured guest’ gives a brief ‘presentation’ of an idea or a perspective on which s/he has some expertise and which is of interest to the group. The presenter then leads and facilitates discussion on the topic. This goes on for perhaps an hour or so, and then the group discussion ends, and people break up into smaller groups to continue eating, drinking, socializing and discussing the topic for the evening, if they so choose.

These gatherings have been stimulating and very enjoyable, and for days, my wife and I have discussed ideas we have heard at these gatherings. Discussing and exchanging ideas of any substance can be difficult or awkward in most social gatherings, and a ‘party for the mind’ creates a permissive environment for people to think and share thoughts and insights. It is a combination of party and classroom. Many people seek and find similar enjoyment and stimulation by joining reading groups, or bible or other religious or spiritual study groups, movie clubs, or any club that regularly explores the nuances of a common interest area, and combines that exploration and discussion with food, drink, and conviviality. The internet has also served to connect people of similar interests, intellectual, cultural or otherwise – people who heretofore have often felt alone and isolated with their interests.

Many people are hungry for the pleasures and challenges of mental stimulation, and I meet them regularly. They have sensed that the satisfactions that come from exploring ideas, appreciating good literature, art, and music, and sharing these with friends in good discussion are qualitatively different, and frequently preferable to the ‘mind candy’ that is so readily available through the media and social and entertainment world.

John Stuart Mill recognized this, and in his Utilitarian calculus, he gave ‘pleasures of the mind’ a higher value than more primal social interactions and pleasures of the body. He famously commented that he believed it to be preferable to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied. His argument went as such: If forced to choose between the pleasures of the mind and the pleasures of the body, people who know both well, over the long term will choose the pleasures of the mind. In fact, older people will argue that nature makes that decision for us anyway. Over a lifetime, the aging process significantly reduces the degree and intensity of the pleasure we get from our bodies (food, drink, sex, and other stimulation), while those who have cultivated the ability to enjoy the pleasures of the mind, continue to be fully stimulated by and enjoy great literature, art, and ideas well into old age.

Many younger people sense this and have shared with me that they struggle to find friends who are interested in ideas, literature, art, and discussion. While these people do enjoy popular culture and appreciate the fun and exciting activities around which much social activity is based, they feel something is missing and want something more. Life IS and should be Fun – but ‘fun’ has many forms, and a ‘party for the mind,’ can be an enjoyable way to generate thought and discussion that goes beyond the NFL play-offs, Avatar, or Tiger Woods’ travails. It is not an either/or choice between being a Socrates, struggling to understand, or a ‘pig satisfied.’ It is a ‘both/and’ opportunity. I too was young once, and enjoyed glimpses of the pleasures of the mind that complemented and sometimes even surpassed the pleasures that came from following the simple imperative of a young Navy Seal: “Eat, f—, sky-dive.”