Deathwish, Dying Wishes

Posted on Monday, May 24th, 2010

These are my dying wishes, my death bed regrets:

I wish I logged more hours in an office. I wish I had more stress that I could claim as “responsibility” and have more expectations rest on my actions to give my sense of self a sense of worth.

Oh regrets! I could have been so much more “important.”

In hindsight, I probably should have spent less time reading, and kept my ideas and view of the world small. I wish that I didn’t ask questions and just believed the party line, taking the words of my elders at verbatim as orthodoxy.

I really wasted too much time drinking coffee with friends, I could have done so much more productive stuff. Again, I could have done so much more work: written more papers, implemented more programs, and reviewed more memos.

I wish that I had many more things, shiny trinkets, electric gizmos and stylin’ props to make me look good. Speaking of which, I wish I spent more time trying to get people to recognize me.

It’s all so obvious now: I really should have spent more time writing blog posts.

Indeed, these dying wishes are nothing but a death wish now.

Social Media: The Organization of Self

Posted on Thursday, May 20th, 2010

This reflective mini-essay is about the psychology of social media.

First, the preamble:

Before discussing social media we must pose a question: What, exactly, is an organization, business or institution?

Fundamentally, these things are comprised of people — groups of people — organized together in a (more or less) cohesiveness of purpose(s), such as financial, ideological, personal, etc.

Whether its the production of widgets or rallying for an altruistic cause, organizations are simply people organized together.

However, organizations themselves are markedly different than people. They have logos, letterheads, “corporate images,” boards of directors, hierarchical levels of bureaucracy, time tables, and sometimes even water coolers.

An organization is made up of people; but the organization itself is not a person.

It is another thing entirely. Indeed, thousands of people work in the McDonald’s corporation, but McDonald’s is not a person. It is an organization.

Second, the morphing of identities:

Social networking, such as Facebook, puts us “in touch” with each other, but it does so by making us (as human individuals) become more like mini-organizations which exist unto ourselves.

We have a logo (an avatar, or personal “identity” image); we structure our lives, interests and hobbies like a corporate flowchart; we offer mini press releases to each other when we have something to announce. Social media inherently makes us think and organize ourselves as if “being me” is virtually a business venture.

To engage in social media is to congenitally think of yourself in the third person perspective, because the only “self” there is in this digital world is the one you market to others. There’s nothing here but an electronic image you create and the representations you associate with it.

When people try to “become” organizations some very predictable things happen: they start placing their wholesale value on their market share: how many friends or followers they have, who’s listening to them, and who endorses their carefully calculated “identity package.” This is not a subconscious reality in our world, “personal branding” is a popular term in social media.

Soon it becomes hard to separate the “person” from the “product” — they become genetically integrated: the individual has been atomized into the subcategories and characteristics of its own self-marketed “organization.”

Third, the great infiltration:

Who stands to benefit, monetize, and profit from this phenomenon?

When people begin to think like organizations, it is organizations who find themselves perfectly postured to exploit them.

Your online identity, initially, is not actually you, it is only about you. Ergo this electronic portfolio is simply a list of descriptive appendages that characterize (or caricature) your genuine physical and biological being. The result? Your online identity is a list of definitions, products and interests: in the digital world, this is the “self” that you present as a “friend” to others.

In essence: social media turns you into a virtual commercial for whatever it is that you Like, which is whatever you add to the repertoire of your digital identity. But now it is not “just digital” anymore: you are an human being — who potentially (subconsciously) thinks of yourself as an organization – now “friends” with a corporation.

Let’s remember: organizations are not people, they are just made up of people. You cannot actually “be friends” with an organization unless you are technically one yourself.

Taken further, other “people” in the social media world do not actually “befriend” you as a person in this digital arena, but they can only befriend that which your avatar/profile represents. No matter what your interests, social media instantaneously turns you into a promotional pawn of that cause (or product, lifestyle, brand, etc).

Here’s the bottom line:

The great illusion of social media is that “organizations” can now interact (and “network”) with consumers and supporters like human individuals. This is not the case. Instead, it is actually the other way around: human individuals are beginning to interact with everything as if they themselves are organizations; descriptive, third-party entities that are calculated, defined and abstracted from the actual “self” at the centre).

Thus the infiltration: the organizations we made are making us, and they are not only selling us products, but they are also giving us a way of thinking and living that is far more ingrained in us than we probably realize.

Who made who, who made you?
If you made them and they made you
Who picked up the bill, who?
And who made who?
(Who Made Who, AC/DC)

We made organizational structure; and organizations have taught us how to think. Who made who? That is always the question humanity must ask of every tool we use.

Snapshot of Life (May 2010)

Posted on Sunday, May 16th, 2010

The last few weeks have seen much less blogging than usual for me. Here’s a quick snapshot of life at this moment in time…

This coming Saturday I am getting married to a brilliant and beautiful woman named Michelle. Marriage inherently invokes much reflection about life: committing your life to another individual until death do you part goes a long way to putting a great many things into perspective. Anyway, if you know Michelle you know that I am a seriously lucky man. I’m thoroughly stoked to celebrate our wedding on Saturday.

In preparation of the arrival of my roommate for life, I have also been knee-deep in some grueling home renovations (as evidenced by several comments on Twitter about the neurological freedom discovered when certain fumes are inhaled).

I enjoy the challenge of manual labour, working with my hands, and building things, but admittedly not nearly as much as reading, writing and whimsically waxing philosophical questions over coffee. In my small tidbits of free time I’ve been reading Michel de Certeau’s work, The Practice of Everyday Life. Plumbing, wiring, tiling and drywalling are perfect occupations wherein to ponder books like this.

Speaking of reading, I recently finished reading Storytelling: Bewitching the Modern Mind by Christian Salmon, and have many thoughts percolating that I wish to share from this read, and will do so when time permits (eventually).

Anyway, all this should summarize why the circadian rhythm of my usual blogging routine has been anything but consistent over the last few months.

I do, however, have some big aspirations for this blog in the near future:

  • I went to PodCamp London and attended a workshop by Andrew Kaszowski that inspired me with a whole bunch of ideas for making Inventing a Planet more readable, accessible and functional; so I’m planning on an “overhaul redesign” later this year.
  • On top of that, WordPress 3 is going to be released soon, and the inner geek in me can’t wait to get into it.

Anyway, thanks for reading and following along here (even when things do fall momentarily silent from time to time) — your comments, thoughts, counter-thoughts and feedback are precisely what makes this whole project worthwhile and valuable.

The Microphysics of Power

Posted on Thursday, May 13th, 2010

Who, or what, really controls society?

The relationship between power and knowledge is similar to the relationship between the rich and their wealth: with more capital comes more investment opportunity; the rich get richer…the powerful become more powerful.

Or is it?

In Discipline and Punish Michel Foucult writes that

Perhaps we should abandon the belief that power makes mad and that, by the same token, the renunciation of power is one of the conditions of knowledge. We should admit rather that power produces knowledge (and not simply by encouraging it because it serves power or by applying it because it it is useful); that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations.

Foucault delineates this further to describe the “micro-physics of power” — a way of looking at the world that sees power from the “bottom up”, and across the whole, instead of merely assuming the power of institutions and governments as a given. Later (in Knowledge/Power) he says that

power is not something that you acquire, take by force, or share, something you keep or let run away; power is exercised starting from numerous points, in the game between unequal and moving relations.

and that power

is a moving foothold of the balance of forces that constantly, due to its inequality, causes the conditions of power although always limited and unstable.

This “micro-physics of power” deal is quite intriguing if you think about it.

I am currently working my way through Michel de Certeau’s Practice of Everyday Life; he extrapolates from Foucault’s thoughts on learning that

this “microphysics of power” privileges the productive apparatus…even though it discerns in “education” a system of “repression”

Thinking about the relationship between power and knowledge instantly reminds me of the oft-quoted Paulo Freire, who in Pedagogy of the Oppressed penned these haunting words:

Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.

Who has the power, then? Perhaps we could simply say it is a convoluted matrix of relationships, supported by a dynamic web of institutions, and systematically supported by compulsive obsession with nurturing the next generation into a set of cultural ideals.

In some way, my friends, you and I are the sum total of our exposure to the radiation of all these ideas and forces.

These forces do not really “exist” in any absolute sense; we are not really “oppressed” by anything other than our own limited definitions and concepts.

The micro-physics of power is far more complicated than what a few “powerful” individuals with big guns would like us to think–their power is nothing more our ignorance of what power really is in the first place.

Everything I’ve Learned So Far

Posted on Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

It’s my birthday today. I am getting old. So I thought I would write down everything I’ve learned so far in life. Well, at least everything that really matters. Here it goes:

I cannot control people or situations, only my responses and reactions to them. I have nothing to leverage for my own happiness except my own attitude.

I cannot save the environment; I am the environment. [Great lesson from John Francis.]

Health — while probably the easiest thing to take for granted — is the most fragile gift I will ever have. It is the fulcrum upon which everything else balances–I will respect and nurture it as such. To seek health is to seek life. They are synonymous.

I have about 112 hours of conscious life to live each week: wisdom dictates investing at least one of these hours to meditate on how I will use the remaining 111 hours.

All is impermanence. Change is the only thing that remains the same. Fluctuation is the solidity of life. There is constant change under the sun, and this is nothing new.

Boredom is a symptom of chronic uncreativity and laziness: it’s presence is an all-bells alarm that priorities are seriously out of whack.

Accomplishing anything that yields a sense of meaning is first dependent on how I answer this question: what do I actually want in life? The degree to which I find purpose in life is directly correlated to the degree of clarity with which I answer that question.

Choices, commitments and actions ought to be determined by who I want to be, not in reaction against something that I do not want to become.

What “really happened” in the past will not affect me nearly as much as the story I believe about it, for better or for worse. Stories are meaning; stories are healing; stories are dangerous.

If hope is a mere illusion, then despair is no more imaginary. Thus, be they illusions or not, I still have to choose between them.

Leadership is simple: it is caring for people so much that it becomes obvious what we need to do together and actually doing it becomes natural.

I do not want to be famous, for the pursuit of accolades and recognition just wastes my time on a goal that would probably ruin my life if I was actually unlucky enough to accomplish it.

All these lessons are worth questioning and doubting, because certainty is a circular loop and it traps the mind if given a hold. I am always one assumption away from a dogmatic fundamentalism regarding anything I believe, right or wrong.

Passion is the capacity to act on conviction and continuously question this conviction along the way. I am only genuinely passionate about that which I am also willing to deeply question.

What really matters the most is simply this: who you love, who loves you, and how you define what it means to love.

And with this I will close: I will never assume everything I need to learn could ever be encapsulated in a single blog post!

Do you have any important life lessons to share?

God Always Answers Prayer. Always.

Posted on Monday, May 3rd, 2010

This is why traditional theism is inherently circular and logically self-dependent:

Scenario: We’re getting married. Let’s pray to God and ask for a beautiful, warm, sunny day.

If it’s a beautiful day, then God favorably answered our prayers. God is blessing our marriage.

If it’s a cloudy day, then God saw it right to provide us with a great day for the pictures.

If it’s a rainy, stormy day, then God is helping us build our trust and character; teaching us to surrender our desires to divine will.

If it’s a cyclone or tornado, then God is blessing us with a display of holy majesty through nature.

If an earthquake topples the building or swallows the wedding party into the abyss, then God will be glorified because there will be a few survivors amidst the disaster and rubble.

Thus, when you believe in God, God always answers your prayer. Always.

And again we ask: if we posit that “God” actually exists as a “thing,” how can that “thing” be anything more than a projection of human desire upon the otherwise uncontrollable forces of life? This God is simply an idol, no more eternal than a statue or a graven image, and no less human than our desires for warm, sunny days.

Beat Consumerism: Love Your Stuff

Posted on Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

My friend Abe recently quoted an idea he heard from William Cavanaugh at a recent conference.

Consumerism is actually about detachment from stuff, rather than attachment to it. Our relationships with products are fleeting, making us seek out more.

This is a great paradigm. We tend to think that consumerism is about loving our stuff. But it’s not. Consumerism is a result of not loving our stuff at all. In fact, we have so little regard or respect for our material goods that we dispose and replace them with ever increasing regularity.

Part of the cure for over-consumption is to become more materialistic. That is, if you want to stop consuming more and more, you need to appreciate the goods that you already have. Cherish things. Reuse things. Love your stuff.

Teach a man to fish…

Posted on Saturday, May 1st, 2010

You have heard it said:

“Give a hungry man a fish and he will be hungry again in a few hours; teach a man to fish and he can feed himself forever.”

But it is more complicated than that. You also have to ask:

Who owns the pond?

Why do fishing licenses cost so much?

Who polluted the pond?

How much are fishing profits taxed?

Does anyone regulate pond use?

Who rents the dock space?

What social stereotypes are associated with fishing?

What cultural assumptions are implicit in the act of fishing?

The develop of a self-sustaining fishing micro-industry requires much more than skills in catching fish, it is about systemic changes and the synthesis of awareness at every level of society.