"Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life." - Proverbs 13:12
My book was uploaded for sale last night.
This is one of the most exhausted - and happiest - days of my life. I'm happy for several reasons:
1) I am finally a published author. This is something I have been promising myself I would do for years and have been putting it into my annual goals for at least 7 years. Now, it is done.
2) I completed what I started out to do. This is also something that I have not always been as successful in as I would like to or should have been. Throughout my life lies the wreckage of half started projects, half dreamed dreams. One has finally been completed.
3) I am a writer. This is one that makes me happiest of all. I can legitimately call myself a writer.
4) I found out that I can actually sit down and write a book, one that is coherent, with a point, and is something I can take pride in. I have discovered that this is harder than I thought.
This has been a long process. I found the blog entry from December 2010 that set out the concepts which eventually made formed themselves into a book. That's a long row to hoe - far longer than I would have initially anticipated, about 18 months or so.
Among all the other thanks that need to sprinkled about - Snowflake, Otis, An Fear Glice, The Ravishing Mrs. TB, Songbird, Bogha Frois, and especially God - is the thanks I owe to you, the readers of this blog. Indirectly you have made this all possible - I write daily as much because I know someone is reading as I do an expression of my soul. This day by day exercise has enabled me to write on and press hard when I didn't feel like doing so.
What's next? More books, of course - I realized as I finished this one I have another manuscript (long set aside) that I can work towards printing, and the next book in my series following the first book (already being written) and the one after that (in conceptual phase) and maybe the fantasy trilogy I've always wanted to write and the book about Rebuilding the Ruins from Haggai I have felt a prompting to write and oh yes, the idea I had last night at 3 AM that I had to get up and write down before I forgot it...
Thank you.
Friday, July 06, 2012
Thursday, July 05, 2012
Solitude
With An Teaglach gone to Old Home, I've been spending a great deal of time by myself.
It's interesting to hear the reactions of others. They seem to fall into one of two categories: either I'm out living it up or I'm incredibly lonely. While option 1 sounds exciting and option 2 sounds depressing, the reality is that neither one is particularly true.
Solitude is not something that frightens on either of two levels. On the first level, it does not frighten me as being without things to do - in this modern age with electronic items and books and writing and 10 projects I always seem to be needing to see to, I hardly find myself at a true loss for something to do.
It's on the second level that it become more interesting, however: the thought of facing long periods of time by one's self.
It's interesting to me that some people cannot deal with the true concept of being alone. I'm not sure whether it's the concept of having no-one around or the more profound concept of coming face to face with your own self, but it seems alarming to many people. Perhaps it is the fear that in being alone, I'll have to start thinking for myself. Perhaps it is the fear that in being alone, I'll have to deal with the thoughts that start to come bubbling to the surface, things that get submerged beneath the incoming tide of daily dealing with people.
Perhaps it is the fear that I'll simply have to think.
Solitude for me is a time to find my bearings, to think deeply on things, to take the time to do the things that I believe are important but somehow convince myself are not important enough to deal with in my usual life. Solitude for me is not an enemy but an old friend, a place retreat to and find strength the face the world.
All solitude ends of course, and I'll not be sorry to see this one go for the reason that I miss The Ravishing Mrs. TB and Na Clann. I'll see them, hear their stories, and become re-immersed in that bustle and general noise level that constitutes my family life.
But inside, part of me will be waiting for the next chance that I have to re-engage with the gentle silence of solitude.
It's interesting to hear the reactions of others. They seem to fall into one of two categories: either I'm out living it up or I'm incredibly lonely. While option 1 sounds exciting and option 2 sounds depressing, the reality is that neither one is particularly true.
Solitude is not something that frightens on either of two levels. On the first level, it does not frighten me as being without things to do - in this modern age with electronic items and books and writing and 10 projects I always seem to be needing to see to, I hardly find myself at a true loss for something to do.
It's on the second level that it become more interesting, however: the thought of facing long periods of time by one's self.
It's interesting to me that some people cannot deal with the true concept of being alone. I'm not sure whether it's the concept of having no-one around or the more profound concept of coming face to face with your own self, but it seems alarming to many people. Perhaps it is the fear that in being alone, I'll have to start thinking for myself. Perhaps it is the fear that in being alone, I'll have to deal with the thoughts that start to come bubbling to the surface, things that get submerged beneath the incoming tide of daily dealing with people.
Perhaps it is the fear that I'll simply have to think.
Solitude for me is a time to find my bearings, to think deeply on things, to take the time to do the things that I believe are important but somehow convince myself are not important enough to deal with in my usual life. Solitude for me is not an enemy but an old friend, a place retreat to and find strength the face the world.
All solitude ends of course, and I'll not be sorry to see this one go for the reason that I miss The Ravishing Mrs. TB and Na Clann. I'll see them, hear their stories, and become re-immersed in that bustle and general noise level that constitutes my family life.
But inside, part of me will be waiting for the next chance that I have to re-engage with the gentle silence of solitude.
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
The Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
- Referenced from www.archives.gov
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Selfishness and Selflessness
How much of my life is caught up in me!
In spending time today reading through Haggai 1:1-10, I was struck again by God's statement of how the Israelites were more concerned about their own lives than the glorification of God's house and therefore God. God's response was to withdraw His protective hand; the Israelites response was to work even harder to try and provide for themselves rather than see the root of the problem.
Great, I thought. Another interesting lesson from a people in the past about not putting God first. Duly noted. Let's move on.
But then the thought starting percolating in my brain: Putting self first versus putting God first. Suddenly, I had a whole new field to till.
As I sat and thought about it for five minutes, I realized that I am intensely self-focused. At some level in so many parts of my life, my life is about me - especially about how I want people to perceive me. So much of what I do is focused on how I want to be perceived that I eventually become consumed by selfishness at its most basic level: the pursuit of things solely for my benefit. I try and move events to my favor. I try and craft my language and answers to reflect well on me, give myself a certain image I have predetermined in my mind of how I should look. In fact, many activities are undertaken not only because I think I will enjoy them but because I think that they will somehow add to the image of myself in my mind - and how others perceive me.
The result? In behavior I become erratic, trying to hold on to an image that cannot be maintained or letting the image move me to places I should never go. In language and communication, I speak more to be heard rather than hear, and my words become weapons that destroy and hurt, even inadvertently. In activities, I "suddenly" lose interest when the activity doesn't contribute to the mythical image I have constructed for myself.
In clinging to my own self interest, I lose myself.
Which is why (I think) Christ was so insistent that we deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him. Me focused on me creates someone who is following the image of me. Me following Christ, allowing His Spirit to dwell in me and guide my actions, is Christ lived out through the way He created me.
What my image is no longer becomes as important; what Christ's image is in the eyes of others become important, which directs my behavior in ways that are consistent with what I say believe. In language and communication, I communicate what God and Christ have said, not what my opinions are; application becomes based in His word, not in my own ideas. The result is that there is now some grounding for what I speak, not just what sounds wise. In events, I seek to be in them in a way that brings glory to Him not me; I am relieved of the responsiblity of trying to guide them. And in activities, I do what is honoring to God because it honors God; the result is that what I do I do because it is how I'm made and that I enjoy the activities and can enjoy them for what they are and what they bring to my life, not what I think they should make me look like.
There's a first step, of course: agreeing that Christ and His image in me is more important than the image I have created for myself. It's the difference of comparing a sheet of hammered gold and a sheet of toilet paper: both are sheets, but one is far more valuable than the other - and infinitely more enduring.
The question is, am I willing to perceive the true value.
In spending time today reading through Haggai 1:1-10, I was struck again by God's statement of how the Israelites were more concerned about their own lives than the glorification of God's house and therefore God. God's response was to withdraw His protective hand; the Israelites response was to work even harder to try and provide for themselves rather than see the root of the problem.
Great, I thought. Another interesting lesson from a people in the past about not putting God first. Duly noted. Let's move on.
But then the thought starting percolating in my brain: Putting self first versus putting God first. Suddenly, I had a whole new field to till.
As I sat and thought about it for five minutes, I realized that I am intensely self-focused. At some level in so many parts of my life, my life is about me - especially about how I want people to perceive me. So much of what I do is focused on how I want to be perceived that I eventually become consumed by selfishness at its most basic level: the pursuit of things solely for my benefit. I try and move events to my favor. I try and craft my language and answers to reflect well on me, give myself a certain image I have predetermined in my mind of how I should look. In fact, many activities are undertaken not only because I think I will enjoy them but because I think that they will somehow add to the image of myself in my mind - and how others perceive me.
The result? In behavior I become erratic, trying to hold on to an image that cannot be maintained or letting the image move me to places I should never go. In language and communication, I speak more to be heard rather than hear, and my words become weapons that destroy and hurt, even inadvertently. In activities, I "suddenly" lose interest when the activity doesn't contribute to the mythical image I have constructed for myself.
In clinging to my own self interest, I lose myself.
Which is why (I think) Christ was so insistent that we deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him. Me focused on me creates someone who is following the image of me. Me following Christ, allowing His Spirit to dwell in me and guide my actions, is Christ lived out through the way He created me.
What my image is no longer becomes as important; what Christ's image is in the eyes of others become important, which directs my behavior in ways that are consistent with what I say believe. In language and communication, I communicate what God and Christ have said, not what my opinions are; application becomes based in His word, not in my own ideas. The result is that there is now some grounding for what I speak, not just what sounds wise. In events, I seek to be in them in a way that brings glory to Him not me; I am relieved of the responsiblity of trying to guide them. And in activities, I do what is honoring to God because it honors God; the result is that what I do I do because it is how I'm made and that I enjoy the activities and can enjoy them for what they are and what they bring to my life, not what I think they should make me look like.
There's a first step, of course: agreeing that Christ and His image in me is more important than the image I have created for myself. It's the difference of comparing a sheet of hammered gold and a sheet of toilet paper: both are sheets, but one is far more valuable than the other - and infinitely more enduring.
The question is, am I willing to perceive the true value.
Monday, July 02, 2012
Writers and Copy Editors
I've been mulling over my last post about Doing What You're Not. I recevied some thought provoking feedback from friends and even some though provoking feedback from myself, but found things most clearly defined for me by Stephen King in his book On Writing.
On Writing, for those that have never read it, is a combination autobiography/writing guide from one of the US's most prolific and published authors. Mr. King starts the book with his autobiography to demonstrate how he got his start on writing and got to where he is, then provides a guide on writing, then slips back into an autobiography about his life post-accident and how writing helped him move through that (which turns out to be the book On Writing).
In discussing the creative process, Mr. King does a good a job as any I've read (let's be fair: better than most) about discussing the basics of writing, especially in a section that is about a third of the book and shorter than many whole books on aspects of writing but probably the best and most concise I've read.
In one section - on proofing - he makes the offhanded comment about correcting a comma, saying that although there are copyeditors it's something he should take care of. The sentence just sat there, hanging in mid-air as I looked at it. Suddenly it became clear.
There are two kinds of people in lots of things: writers and copyeditors. Writers may generate the great ideas and create the text, but their primary job is not to verify that everything is perfect (it's better, of course, and makes you look more professional but is not their primary job). Copyeditors are the ones that catch errors, correct, make suggestions to the phrasing and words and punctuation. Writers create, copyeditors make sure the creation is linguistically and grammatically correct.
One can't be the other - and shouldn't. Writers trying to copyedit probably drive themselves batty; copyeditors trying to write (unless they're writers as well) may not have the creative spark. But each of them works together in concert for a marvelous whole: a book which is both well written and grammatically correct.
Can one adapt to the other? I'm not sure. I would think a writer could do a copyeditor's work, but for myself I find it slows me down a great deal, and for me writing is about catching the flow of ideas as they spill out. I wonder as well for the detail oriented if they could write with speed, or would the inner corrective catch every error as it came out, preventing the full idea from becoming real.
But more importantly for me: if one realizes one is a writer and not a copyeditor, can one find a way back to the writing side of the page?
On Writing, for those that have never read it, is a combination autobiography/writing guide from one of the US's most prolific and published authors. Mr. King starts the book with his autobiography to demonstrate how he got his start on writing and got to where he is, then provides a guide on writing, then slips back into an autobiography about his life post-accident and how writing helped him move through that (which turns out to be the book On Writing).
In discussing the creative process, Mr. King does a good a job as any I've read (let's be fair: better than most) about discussing the basics of writing, especially in a section that is about a third of the book and shorter than many whole books on aspects of writing but probably the best and most concise I've read.
In one section - on proofing - he makes the offhanded comment about correcting a comma, saying that although there are copyeditors it's something he should take care of. The sentence just sat there, hanging in mid-air as I looked at it. Suddenly it became clear.
There are two kinds of people in lots of things: writers and copyeditors. Writers may generate the great ideas and create the text, but their primary job is not to verify that everything is perfect (it's better, of course, and makes you look more professional but is not their primary job). Copyeditors are the ones that catch errors, correct, make suggestions to the phrasing and words and punctuation. Writers create, copyeditors make sure the creation is linguistically and grammatically correct.
One can't be the other - and shouldn't. Writers trying to copyedit probably drive themselves batty; copyeditors trying to write (unless they're writers as well) may not have the creative spark. But each of them works together in concert for a marvelous whole: a book which is both well written and grammatically correct.
Can one adapt to the other? I'm not sure. I would think a writer could do a copyeditor's work, but for myself I find it slows me down a great deal, and for me writing is about catching the flow of ideas as they spill out. I wonder as well for the detail oriented if they could write with speed, or would the inner corrective catch every error as it came out, preventing the full idea from becoming real.
But more importantly for me: if one realizes one is a writer and not a copyeditor, can one find a way back to the writing side of the page?
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Doing What You're Not
I had another one of those lovely conversations with Bogha Frois last night which comes precisely at the time I need it - and sparks a massive amount of thinking afterwards.
No lies - this was a long and hard week, long to the point that on Tuesday it seemed like it should have been Wednesday. Virtually the last thing that happened before I left was the discovery of an error which had been reviewed and re-reviewed 15 times. All the old accusations of failing and not paying attention washed over me like a tsunami, and I crawled home dragging worse than I had all week.
And then I talked to Bogha Frois, and found that she had a week just like it. There is a peculiar comfort in shared misery.
As she walked me her through week - rising frustrations, rising disconnections, changes in physical well-being and mental attitude - it was like looking into a mirror and hearing myself speak. She put into words everything that I had been feeling - everything that I have inside but could not express.
Overriding everything for both of us was this huge wall of frustration, this wall we simply cannot get over. It's as if the cliff is crumbling behind you and the wall is too high in front of you and there is simply no place to turn: you do not want to plunge to your doom, but neither do you want to be pressed up to a wall, unable to do anything except beat your head against it.
And then the thought occurred to me as I got ready to make cheese this morning: I'm not doing what I am.
I am simply not a detail person. Yes, I understand that we all have to have some attention to detail (in writing and cheesemaking as in all else) and of course it's easier when it's something you're interested in. But I'm not the kind of person that happily sits at a desk, reviewing and re-reviewing, reference and cross-referencing. I take little joy in the thought that I have corrected an error.
What am I then? I'm a creative person - a broad brush painter, a starter. I love to create things. I love to see the possibilities. I love to make things - things of beauty, things that are of use to others.
And like a smack on the side of the head, all became clear. My frustration mounts because I'm not doing that which I do best. The frustration I feel is because I am not creating or making anything; instead, I'm correcting and cross-referencing.
The result? Not only everything mentioned above, but an additional factor that I seem to be losing interest in almost everything I like to do. Career has become like the Ring in The Lord of the Rings in Frodo's mind: A burning wheel of fire dominating everything.
What to do? I'm not sure. Creative careers are surely much harder to come by than those of execution and detail are required.
But there's another simple fact. Doing what you are not is like putting a freshwater fish into seawater: it will not survive long.
No lies - this was a long and hard week, long to the point that on Tuesday it seemed like it should have been Wednesday. Virtually the last thing that happened before I left was the discovery of an error which had been reviewed and re-reviewed 15 times. All the old accusations of failing and not paying attention washed over me like a tsunami, and I crawled home dragging worse than I had all week.
And then I talked to Bogha Frois, and found that she had a week just like it. There is a peculiar comfort in shared misery.
As she walked me her through week - rising frustrations, rising disconnections, changes in physical well-being and mental attitude - it was like looking into a mirror and hearing myself speak. She put into words everything that I had been feeling - everything that I have inside but could not express.
Overriding everything for both of us was this huge wall of frustration, this wall we simply cannot get over. It's as if the cliff is crumbling behind you and the wall is too high in front of you and there is simply no place to turn: you do not want to plunge to your doom, but neither do you want to be pressed up to a wall, unable to do anything except beat your head against it.
And then the thought occurred to me as I got ready to make cheese this morning: I'm not doing what I am.
I am simply not a detail person. Yes, I understand that we all have to have some attention to detail (in writing and cheesemaking as in all else) and of course it's easier when it's something you're interested in. But I'm not the kind of person that happily sits at a desk, reviewing and re-reviewing, reference and cross-referencing. I take little joy in the thought that I have corrected an error.
What am I then? I'm a creative person - a broad brush painter, a starter. I love to create things. I love to see the possibilities. I love to make things - things of beauty, things that are of use to others.
And like a smack on the side of the head, all became clear. My frustration mounts because I'm not doing that which I do best. The frustration I feel is because I am not creating or making anything; instead, I'm correcting and cross-referencing.
The result? Not only everything mentioned above, but an additional factor that I seem to be losing interest in almost everything I like to do. Career has become like the Ring in The Lord of the Rings in Frodo's mind: A burning wheel of fire dominating everything.
What to do? I'm not sure. Creative careers are surely much harder to come by than those of execution and detail are required.
But there's another simple fact. Doing what you are not is like putting a freshwater fish into seawater: it will not survive long.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Failures
Failures bother me. Personal failures bother me more. Repeat personal failures bother me the most.
Nothing speaks to me more of my sin nature than the fact that there are just some things that I repeatedly fail at - not the sort of thing that is tried and not accomplished, but the sort of thing that is done and shouldn't be. For those who are Christian, it's sin.
It bothers me but not on the level that it really should.
The thing that does bother me is that it is a sign of personal weakness, a lack of self control. Especially returning to the same issues over and over again. It serves as a reminder that I have not overcome basic character flaws and not self disciplined myself enough.
But the thing that doesn't bother me - and should - is how much it says about how far I haven't come yet.
Repeat personal failures should be treated by me as one of the greatest learning tools I have available to myself. They are the road signs of things I have not advanced in but should have. They demonstrate where I am most vulnerable. They show where sin resides most deeply in my soul, the ingrained portions I cannot or will not address.
They are the road map to all the unlit portions of my soul. And seeing them, knowing they are there, means that I have grasped where my limitations lie, because I cannot advance farther than my greatest personal failure.
The question is am I more committed to dealing with them - and the pain and discomfort that will cause - than I am committed to becoming comfortable with them.
Nothing speaks to me more of my sin nature than the fact that there are just some things that I repeatedly fail at - not the sort of thing that is tried and not accomplished, but the sort of thing that is done and shouldn't be. For those who are Christian, it's sin.
It bothers me but not on the level that it really should.
The thing that does bother me is that it is a sign of personal weakness, a lack of self control. Especially returning to the same issues over and over again. It serves as a reminder that I have not overcome basic character flaws and not self disciplined myself enough.
But the thing that doesn't bother me - and should - is how much it says about how far I haven't come yet.
Repeat personal failures should be treated by me as one of the greatest learning tools I have available to myself. They are the road signs of things I have not advanced in but should have. They demonstrate where I am most vulnerable. They show where sin resides most deeply in my soul, the ingrained portions I cannot or will not address.
They are the road map to all the unlit portions of my soul. And seeing them, knowing they are there, means that I have grasped where my limitations lie, because I cannot advance farther than my greatest personal failure.
The question is am I more committed to dealing with them - and the pain and discomfort that will cause - than I am committed to becoming comfortable with them.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Editing
I'm now on the approxatimately 501st copy of editing work for my book. In long years of reading and writing and doing documentation professionally, this is one of the longest and most frustrating things I've ever done.
I've printed out hardcopy and edited that. I've reviewed it online and edited that. I've reviewed online, made additional changes I located and then edited that. And still, the nagging little errors miss my every sweep, ready to leap in and show themelves after I think I'm finished.
Part of me just wants to surrender and give up, to say "That's enough - you've surely caught 99% of the errors. A mis-spelled word isn't going to make or break you." But as soon as that comes up, the very first time I catch one more error, I immediately switch to "What else did I miss?" and get ready to re-route the thing for formatting and review.
In an odd way this is highly symbolic of the work that I do right now - sending documents around for review and signature, learning (the hard way) that printing out a hard copy is truly the only way to review, catching something I should have changed after I signed it. Rushing there gives me no more greater speed than in my personal life, apparently.
It strikes as remarkable because this is really the sort of thing people think they want: clean or well assembled work or documents, 100% correct, pleasing to the eye. What they fail to realize is that such work takes a lot of attention to detail and hard work (those "Thankless Tasks" I have written of before) is work that is by and large unseen and unappreciated.
Not true in this case of course - the end result is something which I am doing for myself, which I will at least reap the benefits of having accomplished instead of yet another document that is essentially invisible.
Still, I have to wonder: if we held this level of expectation out to everyone - if we expected everyone to turn out high quality work - would most people be willing to make the commitment and effort?
I've printed out hardcopy and edited that. I've reviewed it online and edited that. I've reviewed online, made additional changes I located and then edited that. And still, the nagging little errors miss my every sweep, ready to leap in and show themelves after I think I'm finished.
Part of me just wants to surrender and give up, to say "That's enough - you've surely caught 99% of the errors. A mis-spelled word isn't going to make or break you." But as soon as that comes up, the very first time I catch one more error, I immediately switch to "What else did I miss?" and get ready to re-route the thing for formatting and review.
In an odd way this is highly symbolic of the work that I do right now - sending documents around for review and signature, learning (the hard way) that printing out a hard copy is truly the only way to review, catching something I should have changed after I signed it. Rushing there gives me no more greater speed than in my personal life, apparently.
It strikes as remarkable because this is really the sort of thing people think they want: clean or well assembled work or documents, 100% correct, pleasing to the eye. What they fail to realize is that such work takes a lot of attention to detail and hard work (those "Thankless Tasks" I have written of before) is work that is by and large unseen and unappreciated.
Not true in this case of course - the end result is something which I am doing for myself, which I will at least reap the benefits of having accomplished instead of yet another document that is essentially invisible.
Still, I have to wonder: if we held this level of expectation out to everyone - if we expected everyone to turn out high quality work - would most people be willing to make the commitment and effort?
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Signatures
A signature is more than just our name:
It is an expression of us, of how we perceive
and present ourselves.
Cramped and small, flowing and large,
they are us - or the us that many will perceive.
There are electronic signatures, 'tis true,
but they are no more true signatures
than a typed name is an autograph.
When a signature is applied
it is an approval,
a guarantee,
a statement of our involvement.
When we are gone afterwards -
moved on, left the building, even left the world -
our signature remains as a testimony to our presence.
When our life is done and those who come after us look,
where will they see our signatures?
What will the signature say about us, about what we believed,
about what we supported and who we were?
Do we seek to sign that which truly matters,
or have our signatures become no more than another set of words
written because we have to?
It is an expression of us, of how we perceive
and present ourselves.
Cramped and small, flowing and large,
they are us - or the us that many will perceive.
There are electronic signatures, 'tis true,
but they are no more true signatures
than a typed name is an autograph.
When a signature is applied
it is an approval,
a guarantee,
a statement of our involvement.
When we are gone afterwards -
moved on, left the building, even left the world -
our signature remains as a testimony to our presence.
When our life is done and those who come after us look,
where will they see our signatures?
What will the signature say about us, about what we believed,
about what we supported and who we were?
Do we seek to sign that which truly matters,
or have our signatures become no more than another set of words
written because we have to?
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
Doing It For Me
One of the great struggles I have always had in my life is simply being consistent with anything, continuing to follow it, staying with it. I have picked up half a hundred ideas or things to do in my time; most of them fall by the wayside of life as I move on.
Why is this? It's not as if these things were harmful and needed to be dropped, nor that didn't want to persevere in them. It's just that, well, the motivation seemed to go away.
An example: I have always struggled with exercise in my life. At best I was semi-physically motivated as a child and no team sport player. This has dogged me in my later years, especially when physical activity is almost a necessity for health. I have spurts: I go for a while, seem to reach a point where I feel I've accomplished something, then suddenly stop. Every time I try to pick it back up it seems to be more difficult to do so.
Why is this? It's not as if I don't know the benefits of exercise. It's not as if I don't feel better after I do it. But for some reason, all of these points fail to motivate me on.
Then it occurred to me yesterday: who am I doing this for?
The reality came that more often than not, I do these things not for myself, but for the notice they get me.
I've written before how motivated I am by the approval of others. I found a new layer of it yesterday as I considered the reasons I chose to do so many things: it was not just because they were interesting (they were) or I liked to do them (I did), it was also because it was a topic of novelty and discussion among others, an attention-getter for me. The problem, of course, is that when the attention goes away, so does the reason for doing them.
We cannot ever really succeed or make good in anything that we do not do for ourselves. That's a bold statement I know, and might be construed as selfishness by some. But the reality is that unless we have a personal interest and stake in anything - not based on outside circumstances or outside people - we will eventually stop doing those things because the reward is not what we need to keep us going when the going gets difficult - and at some point, it will.
I confess that this is a difficult thing for me - the idea of self-committing to a goal and seeking the reward when measured against myself rather than any outside influence. It's not something I think I have done before, at least not regularly: so many other activities of my life seemed to be done to please or get the attention of someone else.
But difficult or not, it is time to change. I cannot continue to dip my toes in the water of life and pull them away when others leave the pool, looking for where they will go next so I can dip my toes in too. It's time to decide what rivers to go in myself and take the plunge. If others come too, great: we'll float together. But if they don't, that still cannot influence my thought to stay in the river and ride it once I'm in.
To do the first is to simply become a copy of what's desirable and popular. To do the second is to become the individual one was meant to become.
Why is this? It's not as if these things were harmful and needed to be dropped, nor that didn't want to persevere in them. It's just that, well, the motivation seemed to go away.
An example: I have always struggled with exercise in my life. At best I was semi-physically motivated as a child and no team sport player. This has dogged me in my later years, especially when physical activity is almost a necessity for health. I have spurts: I go for a while, seem to reach a point where I feel I've accomplished something, then suddenly stop. Every time I try to pick it back up it seems to be more difficult to do so.
Why is this? It's not as if I don't know the benefits of exercise. It's not as if I don't feel better after I do it. But for some reason, all of these points fail to motivate me on.
Then it occurred to me yesterday: who am I doing this for?
The reality came that more often than not, I do these things not for myself, but for the notice they get me.
I've written before how motivated I am by the approval of others. I found a new layer of it yesterday as I considered the reasons I chose to do so many things: it was not just because they were interesting (they were) or I liked to do them (I did), it was also because it was a topic of novelty and discussion among others, an attention-getter for me. The problem, of course, is that when the attention goes away, so does the reason for doing them.
We cannot ever really succeed or make good in anything that we do not do for ourselves. That's a bold statement I know, and might be construed as selfishness by some. But the reality is that unless we have a personal interest and stake in anything - not based on outside circumstances or outside people - we will eventually stop doing those things because the reward is not what we need to keep us going when the going gets difficult - and at some point, it will.
I confess that this is a difficult thing for me - the idea of self-committing to a goal and seeking the reward when measured against myself rather than any outside influence. It's not something I think I have done before, at least not regularly: so many other activities of my life seemed to be done to please or get the attention of someone else.
But difficult or not, it is time to change. I cannot continue to dip my toes in the water of life and pull them away when others leave the pool, looking for where they will go next so I can dip my toes in too. It's time to decide what rivers to go in myself and take the plunge. If others come too, great: we'll float together. But if they don't, that still cannot influence my thought to stay in the river and ride it once I'm in.
To do the first is to simply become a copy of what's desirable and popular. To do the second is to become the individual one was meant to become.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Permission
What is the first step to changing our life or anything in our life? Is there a mystical aura that suddenly arises, or do the clouds form themselves into words? Does our dog look up and us and say in an audible voice "Go West, Young Man"?
I ask the question because I am person who on one hand throughly supports the idea of change and growth while on the other hand seem to have a less than stellar track record on the subject. Why is that?
Motivation has something to do with it, of course. Without motivation nothing will happen; without motivation that is not tied something more enduring than "I hope someone notices this" nothing will change for the long term.
But even motivation is an effect, not a cause. There is something deeper still, something buried in the depths of self that give rise to motivation.
And then somewhere on my morning bike ride this morning the answer came blazing down to me: we have to give ourselves permission to grow. We have to become more comitted to the growth that to the comfort of our current self. And we need to accept that we have to choose this ourselves instead of waiting for permission from someone else.
The first two thoughts are ones I've read and seen before, so there was no great shock there. The third one nearly plowed me into a parked car.
We need to accept that we have to choose change for ourselves instead of waiting for permission from someone else.
For myself, I am a man of permissions. I work in an industry of permissions, of things that can and can't be done or there are consequences. And too often I've worked where decisions cannot be made unless decisions are made by others, sometimes decisions which almost run out the clock in making them.
The thing with waiting for permission instead of acting is that sometimes the affirmation comes to late: the window for completing something is gone, or the opportunity has passed. You would have said yes, but you were forced to wait.
That may be as it is in our professional lives. My fear is that I have allowed it to invade my personal life as well - for far too long.
It's almost as if I'm looking for permission - indeed, for approval - from someone else to make changes, looking for a sign of approval, a hint of disapproval, before I move in a direction. Like a soothsayer of old, I watch the flock of birds looking for the slightest variation in flight pattern to determine the course of the future.
But reality is different. Reality is that other than those close to you, most people don't care one way or the other. In fact, in some cases it serves their cause more to have you do nothing than to have you change. But we (at least I) continue to pursue the permission that will not come in hopes that I'll get that spark of affirmation that says "Yes. Go ahead. Do that."
The cure? As hard is it will be for me to implement, the cure is simply to decide that I will no longer wait for permission to change, to grow. There is no permission or approval come - except if it comes from myself. If it is a situation where I need the permissions of others fine, I'll get that. But for much of the growth and change I need to do as an individual, there is no permission from others. There is only the acceptance that I need permission from myself.
Change begins in ourselves the day we decide we have had enough.
I ask the question because I am person who on one hand throughly supports the idea of change and growth while on the other hand seem to have a less than stellar track record on the subject. Why is that?
Motivation has something to do with it, of course. Without motivation nothing will happen; without motivation that is not tied something more enduring than "I hope someone notices this" nothing will change for the long term.
But even motivation is an effect, not a cause. There is something deeper still, something buried in the depths of self that give rise to motivation.
And then somewhere on my morning bike ride this morning the answer came blazing down to me: we have to give ourselves permission to grow. We have to become more comitted to the growth that to the comfort of our current self. And we need to accept that we have to choose this ourselves instead of waiting for permission from someone else.
The first two thoughts are ones I've read and seen before, so there was no great shock there. The third one nearly plowed me into a parked car.
We need to accept that we have to choose change for ourselves instead of waiting for permission from someone else.
For myself, I am a man of permissions. I work in an industry of permissions, of things that can and can't be done or there are consequences. And too often I've worked where decisions cannot be made unless decisions are made by others, sometimes decisions which almost run out the clock in making them.
The thing with waiting for permission instead of acting is that sometimes the affirmation comes to late: the window for completing something is gone, or the opportunity has passed. You would have said yes, but you were forced to wait.
That may be as it is in our professional lives. My fear is that I have allowed it to invade my personal life as well - for far too long.
It's almost as if I'm looking for permission - indeed, for approval - from someone else to make changes, looking for a sign of approval, a hint of disapproval, before I move in a direction. Like a soothsayer of old, I watch the flock of birds looking for the slightest variation in flight pattern to determine the course of the future.
But reality is different. Reality is that other than those close to you, most people don't care one way or the other. In fact, in some cases it serves their cause more to have you do nothing than to have you change. But we (at least I) continue to pursue the permission that will not come in hopes that I'll get that spark of affirmation that says "Yes. Go ahead. Do that."
The cure? As hard is it will be for me to implement, the cure is simply to decide that I will no longer wait for permission to change, to grow. There is no permission or approval come - except if it comes from myself. If it is a situation where I need the permissions of others fine, I'll get that. But for much of the growth and change I need to do as an individual, there is no permission from others. There is only the acceptance that I need permission from myself.
Change begins in ourselves the day we decide we have had enough.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Good At, Love, Worth Doing
"Do what you are good at, do what you love, and do what you believe is worth doing." - Sam Calagione, Brewing Up A Business: Adventures in Entrepreneurship
Economic climates which are not conducive to considering second careers are never the best time to start thinking about one. There's nothing like looking at the closures and layoff in your own field, the economic mayhem around you, and then saying, in a weak and wavering voice "Well, maybe it's time to..." From personal experience I can state that security is something that you don't really miss until it's gone. Feelings of strength and security and a sometimes reckless you have wash away with the realization that it was too often built on assumptions - the first assumption being that the pesky job you may not be crazy about would continue to generate income.
The counterpoint to this thought is exactly what you are doing. It's one thing to argue safety and security; it's another to argue them in the context of facing something which could just simply be boring and fruitless or at worst be destroying your physical and mental health. In such situations, the concept of safety and security dips below the horizon, beaten down by the intense sun of reality which too often feels like a physical presence leaving you hot, drained, and desperately in need of a cool drink called "something I can look forward to".
And then I read something like the quote above - do what you are good at, do what you love, do what you believe in - and suddenly I'm thrown back into the quandary that (it seems) I've been dealing with my whole adult working life: Do I love what I do? Have I ever loved what I did? Was I good at it? Have I done anything that I believe is worth doing?
Looking at my own career history, I can pick out elements of all of those, even with jobs I didn't like all that much. The things I loved doing didn't always pay well and maybe I wasn't that good at it. The jobs I liked okay I may have been good at but didn't love and probably didn't believe they were worth doing. Most unusually, the jobs that I perhaps felt were the worst all, that I didn't love but may have been good at, were some of the jobs that (on a macro level) were jobs that needed to be done.
So the question remains, is such a concept even valid? Is it better to do something worth doing, maybe even something you're okay at if you don't love it? Does loving something overcome the need of it being worth doing? (Being good at something is partially natural talent and partially practice; given time most people can become passably skilled at most things so I would argue it's the least of the three factors.) I don't doubt that the combination of those three things are what brings the ultimate satisfaction and ultimate success to individuals and companies that find them. The question is, how do you find it?
And, if you figure out what it is, how do you go about doing it?
Economic climates which are not conducive to considering second careers are never the best time to start thinking about one. There's nothing like looking at the closures and layoff in your own field, the economic mayhem around you, and then saying, in a weak and wavering voice "Well, maybe it's time to..." From personal experience I can state that security is something that you don't really miss until it's gone. Feelings of strength and security and a sometimes reckless you have wash away with the realization that it was too often built on assumptions - the first assumption being that the pesky job you may not be crazy about would continue to generate income.
The counterpoint to this thought is exactly what you are doing. It's one thing to argue safety and security; it's another to argue them in the context of facing something which could just simply be boring and fruitless or at worst be destroying your physical and mental health. In such situations, the concept of safety and security dips below the horizon, beaten down by the intense sun of reality which too often feels like a physical presence leaving you hot, drained, and desperately in need of a cool drink called "something I can look forward to".
And then I read something like the quote above - do what you are good at, do what you love, do what you believe in - and suddenly I'm thrown back into the quandary that (it seems) I've been dealing with my whole adult working life: Do I love what I do? Have I ever loved what I did? Was I good at it? Have I done anything that I believe is worth doing?
Looking at my own career history, I can pick out elements of all of those, even with jobs I didn't like all that much. The things I loved doing didn't always pay well and maybe I wasn't that good at it. The jobs I liked okay I may have been good at but didn't love and probably didn't believe they were worth doing. Most unusually, the jobs that I perhaps felt were the worst all, that I didn't love but may have been good at, were some of the jobs that (on a macro level) were jobs that needed to be done.
So the question remains, is such a concept even valid? Is it better to do something worth doing, maybe even something you're okay at if you don't love it? Does loving something overcome the need of it being worth doing? (Being good at something is partially natural talent and partially practice; given time most people can become passably skilled at most things so I would argue it's the least of the three factors.) I don't doubt that the combination of those three things are what brings the ultimate satisfaction and ultimate success to individuals and companies that find them. The question is, how do you find it?
And, if you figure out what it is, how do you go about doing it?
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Ineffective
Fighting with ineffectiveness this week.
Frankly, I feel ineffective. Every week I convince myself by the end that the next week will be better, that I just have to dig deeper and try harder. And every week I find that have either lied to myself or events are not what they seem.
In order to be effective, one has to be able to point to something that one has changed for the better, something that one has done that has had an impact. The question is, what does one do when the impacts one seem to fall through the pavement as the cracks get wider?
I keep trying to find bedrock, the bottom, something that will not collapse under my weight as I rest it. But everywhere I seem to put it, I hear the sound of cracking ice starting to break.
So then I have to ask: if it's ineffectiveness I feel, is it because of me - or because I simply can't be effective at all in this situation?
The two are different of course. In one, it's not the situation that is the issue but it is myself. In the other, it is not I that have failed but rather the situation.
How am I going to resolve this? I honestly have no idea. There is no easy out here. At best, things keep going and I receive the inevitable blame for anything that happens; at worst....well, at worst I find myself in a situation I've been in before.
When everything seems broken, how do you find the one thing you can fix? And even if you find it, does fixing it make the difference you think it should?
Frankly, I feel ineffective. Every week I convince myself by the end that the next week will be better, that I just have to dig deeper and try harder. And every week I find that have either lied to myself or events are not what they seem.
In order to be effective, one has to be able to point to something that one has changed for the better, something that one has done that has had an impact. The question is, what does one do when the impacts one seem to fall through the pavement as the cracks get wider?
I keep trying to find bedrock, the bottom, something that will not collapse under my weight as I rest it. But everywhere I seem to put it, I hear the sound of cracking ice starting to break.
So then I have to ask: if it's ineffectiveness I feel, is it because of me - or because I simply can't be effective at all in this situation?
The two are different of course. In one, it's not the situation that is the issue but it is myself. In the other, it is not I that have failed but rather the situation.
How am I going to resolve this? I honestly have no idea. There is no easy out here. At best, things keep going and I receive the inevitable blame for anything that happens; at worst....well, at worst I find myself in a situation I've been in before.
When everything seems broken, how do you find the one thing you can fix? And even if you find it, does fixing it make the difference you think it should?
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Motivation and Mediocrity III
How can we use our own motivation to motivate others?
This is the challenge that I find for myself every day: not just that I need to motivate myself, but that as a manager I need to motivate those under and around me. Motivation is always easy when things are going well and people are happy, of course. The unfortunate part is that very few of us dwell in that particular world.
Recall that motivation stems from a motive, really something which causes someone to act. It's often difficult to give myself a reason to act - it can be ten times more difficult to get others to act. Why? Because in the end, I know what motivates me. It can be very difficult to know what will motivate others.
There's a short cut of course, one that authorities like to use all the time. It's called the "You will do this" scenario, in which an individual is told to do something or something less than desirable will happen. It certain is appropriate in some cases - traffic laws come to mind - but it hardly lends itself to creating highly motivated people. It is simply a fact that when I am forced to do something - or when I feel forced to do something - at some level I simply will not put some aspect of my best effort into it.
There is an answer, of course, even if I'm to dim to see it. Some people simply have the ability to motivate others. I've participated in being in such groups, even if I am seldom able to recreate the experience myself for others. If I had to describe it, I would say that it is the sense that what I am doing is contributing to a greater cause, some greater good, or that somehow the efforts that I am putting in now will result in a better person than I am now.
One thing that leaps to mind as I write that is that good motivators have the ability to paint a picture, to make something real. Be it a future day, be it an output, even be it an idealized picture of myself, the best motivators bring to life a picture of what is possible - indeed, what is probable if only one will rededicate one's self.
But great motivators of others also have something else: a track record of success. People believe in their words and visions and become motivated because this person has accomplished such things in the past. Even if they themselves are not physically leading, their accomplishments serve as a sort of virtual road map of what is possible. When this is combined with words and visions, it can be well nigh impossible.
But that again points the focus back to where it should probably be: myself. Others cannot be motivated by me unless: 1) I am motivated; 2) I have a vision and can communicate it; and 3) I have credibility that this vision is possible based on my past. Without any one of these three points, I simply will become one more person in a long line of individuals that people have heard speak before - and then they write them off.
Which, I suppose, explains the issue of "You will do this" as a common form of motivation. Authoritarianism is always the easier road than self examination.
This is the challenge that I find for myself every day: not just that I need to motivate myself, but that as a manager I need to motivate those under and around me. Motivation is always easy when things are going well and people are happy, of course. The unfortunate part is that very few of us dwell in that particular world.
Recall that motivation stems from a motive, really something which causes someone to act. It's often difficult to give myself a reason to act - it can be ten times more difficult to get others to act. Why? Because in the end, I know what motivates me. It can be very difficult to know what will motivate others.
There's a short cut of course, one that authorities like to use all the time. It's called the "You will do this" scenario, in which an individual is told to do something or something less than desirable will happen. It certain is appropriate in some cases - traffic laws come to mind - but it hardly lends itself to creating highly motivated people. It is simply a fact that when I am forced to do something - or when I feel forced to do something - at some level I simply will not put some aspect of my best effort into it.
There is an answer, of course, even if I'm to dim to see it. Some people simply have the ability to motivate others. I've participated in being in such groups, even if I am seldom able to recreate the experience myself for others. If I had to describe it, I would say that it is the sense that what I am doing is contributing to a greater cause, some greater good, or that somehow the efforts that I am putting in now will result in a better person than I am now.
One thing that leaps to mind as I write that is that good motivators have the ability to paint a picture, to make something real. Be it a future day, be it an output, even be it an idealized picture of myself, the best motivators bring to life a picture of what is possible - indeed, what is probable if only one will rededicate one's self.
But great motivators of others also have something else: a track record of success. People believe in their words and visions and become motivated because this person has accomplished such things in the past. Even if they themselves are not physically leading, their accomplishments serve as a sort of virtual road map of what is possible. When this is combined with words and visions, it can be well nigh impossible.
But that again points the focus back to where it should probably be: myself. Others cannot be motivated by me unless: 1) I am motivated; 2) I have a vision and can communicate it; and 3) I have credibility that this vision is possible based on my past. Without any one of these three points, I simply will become one more person in a long line of individuals that people have heard speak before - and then they write them off.
Which, I suppose, explains the issue of "You will do this" as a common form of motivation. Authoritarianism is always the easier road than self examination.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Changing Classics
Yesterday for Father's Day the Ravishing Mrs. TB and Na Clann indulged me for Father's Day by taking me to see John Carter. I am a great fan of the series penned by Edgar Rice Burroughs and although I had some trepidation when I heard a picture was being made (because book adaptations so seldom seem to get things right), I at least excited to see a series that I enjoyed so much growing up brought to visualization on the screen.
I left the theater in a sort of fuzzy aftershock, akin to finding out a friend you knew in high school had taken up an unusual hobby that you weren't sure was really healthy or not.
Did I enjoy the movie? Overall, yes. The scenery and recreation of the dead cities and sea bottoms of Barsoom were close to what I pictured. The representation of John Carter's ability to jump (less gravity on Barsoom, you know) was even better than I could have pictured. Woola, the Martian Hound, was a treat. The Green Men - Tharks, Warhoons - were different than my pictures of them, but there have been many different artistic interpretations of them over the years so that was not a huge obstacle. The interpretation of Barsoomian technology - fliers, weapons, buildings - was different but not all out of line with what I had seen in my mind and on the pages of the books.
Plot and characters? Ah, there's the rub.
Plot- The plot and storyline actually incorporated parts of the first three books of the John Carter series. They did what I seem to loathe in other movies: they used characters and situations from different parts of the books, added a big dollop of explanation to create conflict, and then spun it back out into the theater. The effect was disconcerting, a sort of fusion plot cuisine in which you discover that Japanese and Bulgarian cooking are not as compatible as you had first hoped.
Characters - This is where the breakdown really occurred for me. Dejah Thoris has been modified from a Princess to a "Princess-who-is-the-regent-of-the-Hall-of-Science-and-Inventor", I assume to break some kind of character mold and give greater appeal to a female audience - a strong lead (although interestingly enough, Dejah Thoris of the books never strikes you as anything but a strong female presence). Still, worse things have happened to beloved characters of my youth, so I could soldier on.
John Carter - this was the biggest problem. John Carter of the movie was a man who was bitter, who gave his allegiance to no-one after the Civil War and the death of his wife and daughter. He is man consumed with finding his treasure and is not a man of causes. It is only after great soul searching that he "suddenly" becomes devoted to a cause.
John Carter of the books was none of these things. He was a man who believed passionately in a cause, a man to whom money was useful but not required. He fought for causes - even loosing ones. He was noble and brave, not shirking the call of duty.
The movie John Carter became a hero. The book John Carter always was one.
As movies are developed, is there an incessant need to feel that characters need to be redeveloped? If so, why? Because they're dated (hardly the case for John Carter I think, as his books continue to sell)? Because writers like the name and not the character and so are trying to cheat moviegoers into coming to see that which they think they know, a sort of mask of a person without the person behind them? Or is it that in creating a character they are really creating what they themselves view the society in which they write needs are wants: that a man of heroic proportions and single minded purpose either no longer exists or should not, that such a man has been replaced by the man of profit and no causes?
Deep thoughts for a two hour afternoon movie, I know. But it left me with one question: if a book is popular because of what it is, what sense does it make to change it to make a movie? Is it hubris on the part of the writers that they know better than the author? Or simply that if something does not conform to a world view, it's easier to write differently than to confront the outstanding issues in our own souls?
I left the theater in a sort of fuzzy aftershock, akin to finding out a friend you knew in high school had taken up an unusual hobby that you weren't sure was really healthy or not.
Did I enjoy the movie? Overall, yes. The scenery and recreation of the dead cities and sea bottoms of Barsoom were close to what I pictured. The representation of John Carter's ability to jump (less gravity on Barsoom, you know) was even better than I could have pictured. Woola, the Martian Hound, was a treat. The Green Men - Tharks, Warhoons - were different than my pictures of them, but there have been many different artistic interpretations of them over the years so that was not a huge obstacle. The interpretation of Barsoomian technology - fliers, weapons, buildings - was different but not all out of line with what I had seen in my mind and on the pages of the books.
Plot and characters? Ah, there's the rub.
Plot- The plot and storyline actually incorporated parts of the first three books of the John Carter series. They did what I seem to loathe in other movies: they used characters and situations from different parts of the books, added a big dollop of explanation to create conflict, and then spun it back out into the theater. The effect was disconcerting, a sort of fusion plot cuisine in which you discover that Japanese and Bulgarian cooking are not as compatible as you had first hoped.
Characters - This is where the breakdown really occurred for me. Dejah Thoris has been modified from a Princess to a "Princess-who-is-the-regent-of-the-Hall-of-Science-and-Inventor", I assume to break some kind of character mold and give greater appeal to a female audience - a strong lead (although interestingly enough, Dejah Thoris of the books never strikes you as anything but a strong female presence). Still, worse things have happened to beloved characters of my youth, so I could soldier on.
John Carter - this was the biggest problem. John Carter of the movie was a man who was bitter, who gave his allegiance to no-one after the Civil War and the death of his wife and daughter. He is man consumed with finding his treasure and is not a man of causes. It is only after great soul searching that he "suddenly" becomes devoted to a cause.
John Carter of the books was none of these things. He was a man who believed passionately in a cause, a man to whom money was useful but not required. He fought for causes - even loosing ones. He was noble and brave, not shirking the call of duty.
The movie John Carter became a hero. The book John Carter always was one.
As movies are developed, is there an incessant need to feel that characters need to be redeveloped? If so, why? Because they're dated (hardly the case for John Carter I think, as his books continue to sell)? Because writers like the name and not the character and so are trying to cheat moviegoers into coming to see that which they think they know, a sort of mask of a person without the person behind them? Or is it that in creating a character they are really creating what they themselves view the society in which they write needs are wants: that a man of heroic proportions and single minded purpose either no longer exists or should not, that such a man has been replaced by the man of profit and no causes?
Deep thoughts for a two hour afternoon movie, I know. But it left me with one question: if a book is popular because of what it is, what sense does it make to change it to make a movie? Is it hubris on the part of the writers that they know better than the author? Or simply that if something does not conform to a world view, it's easier to write differently than to confront the outstanding issues in our own souls?
Friday, June 15, 2012
Motivation and Mediocrity II
The whole question of motivation lingered in my mind yesterday after I wrote my post and continued about my day. The issues I wrote about were the same ones I confronted at work - bottom line, why is it that so few are motivated to be self-initiating and will only respond to outside influences?
The question came up last night with Bogha Frois in phone call. Her lament mirrored my own earlier one: why is that some people are simply content to put in the minimum of effort - except when pushed by others? Why aren't more people self-motivated - and self motivated to do well?
Motivation, in case you were wondering, is either "The act, process, or condition of being motivated" or "a motivating force, stimulus, or influence". (Thank you Merriam-Webster.)
Okay, that's a definition I can start with. A motivating force, stimulus, or influence. Interestingly, it doesn't say whether that force is internal or external, just that it is.
So now we've got something to work with: A force/stimulus/influence, internal or external, which motivates.
Motivates? Back to Merriam-Webster: "To provide with a motive; impel". Fine, then - Motive?: "Something that causes someone to act."
So motivation is really nothing more than something that causes someone to act. It's a neutral thing. It can come internally or externally. But motive as a cause has an effect - it causes an action.
The question then becomes "Why don't more people seem to have something which causes them to act from the inside, rather than having to be externally caused to act from the outside?" There's the nut that, if someone could crack, could lead to one of the greatest explosions of creativity and industry in the history of the world.
Back to the practical. What causes you to act? What causes me to act? Can it be discovered in others and fanned into flame? Or is it something which we all must discover on our own? Are motivations, like our secret selves, something only we and we alone can truly find - and change?
The question came up last night with Bogha Frois in phone call. Her lament mirrored my own earlier one: why is that some people are simply content to put in the minimum of effort - except when pushed by others? Why aren't more people self-motivated - and self motivated to do well?
Motivation, in case you were wondering, is either "The act, process, or condition of being motivated" or "a motivating force, stimulus, or influence". (Thank you Merriam-Webster.)
Okay, that's a definition I can start with. A motivating force, stimulus, or influence. Interestingly, it doesn't say whether that force is internal or external, just that it is.
So now we've got something to work with: A force/stimulus/influence, internal or external, which motivates.
Motivates? Back to Merriam-Webster: "To provide with a motive; impel". Fine, then - Motive?: "Something that causes someone to act."
So motivation is really nothing more than something that causes someone to act. It's a neutral thing. It can come internally or externally. But motive as a cause has an effect - it causes an action.
The question then becomes "Why don't more people seem to have something which causes them to act from the inside, rather than having to be externally caused to act from the outside?" There's the nut that, if someone could crack, could lead to one of the greatest explosions of creativity and industry in the history of the world.
Back to the practical. What causes you to act? What causes me to act? Can it be discovered in others and fanned into flame? Or is it something which we all must discover on our own? Are motivations, like our secret selves, something only we and we alone can truly find - and change?
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Motivation and Mediocrity
I was having a conversation with a colleague yesterday concerning a number of things, including creating items (business aides) for them to use to comply with our systems. I confess I'm a bit less generous than he is, and made the case that while tools can be provided if they're not used that's not my fault. We continued into the discussion about responsibility of individuals versus the responsibility of those providing compliance oversight provide everything to make that happen, including make things very easy (i.e. "spoon feeding"). Finally, asked why I though some areas were not improving, I simply said "They don't care. People don't care. And until they do, things won't really get better."
I buried the thought and continued on through my day until, finishing up my post-lunch lemonade, I found the following quote from Andrew Carnegie:
"People unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity."
Poof. Epiphany.
It's certainly true that without motivation people may accomplish something, but it sure won't be much are or of good quality. It's equally true that self motivation is far more productive than motivation enforced from above - also known as "fear" or "command structure". The question is, where does that self motivation - the best kind, the most product - come from?
I think it comes from one of two places. The first place is the motivation for self - that what I am doing will ultimately benefit me in some way and I can see the way that it will benefit me. This is why people work at low-paying jobs to do the things they love or workout when it's convenient or not, because they see the ultimate good.
The other place is the motivation of others - that what I am doing is ultimately going to benefit someone else and I can see the way that it will benefit them. This again can be as simple as working at something I don't love to support my family or doing something that is tedious and thankless because it serves a larger purpose, such as cooking a meal for someone who needs it or enforcing regulations to make sure a product that is supposed to help someone is well made.
There is an alternative, as Carnegie puts it, one that many people are simply not willing to acknowledge but is arguably as expected as the law of gravity: if you can't or won't self motivate, there is only one other option: mediocrity. And this mediocrity you must be content with - if you will not work with the one, you will have the other.
So here's the question, a question that as I think about it I'm sure companies, corporation, teams and governments have asked throughout history: how do we get those who are under us to motivate themselves?
It's a good question. People who are motivated are generally better workers, more careful workers, and more driven workers. Even if what they are doing is not directly related to the source of their motivation, they do what they do because of that motivation.
(And when I use worker I use it in the largest sense possible: you can substitute creators, volunteers, parents, etc. It's doing anything that relates to the motivation).
What's your motivation? What's mine? If we don't know, if we can't verbalize it and understand, we are almost certainly doomed to mediocrity - and this is something we can only blame ourselves for.
I buried the thought and continued on through my day until, finishing up my post-lunch lemonade, I found the following quote from Andrew Carnegie:
"People unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity."
Poof. Epiphany.
It's certainly true that without motivation people may accomplish something, but it sure won't be much are or of good quality. It's equally true that self motivation is far more productive than motivation enforced from above - also known as "fear" or "command structure". The question is, where does that self motivation - the best kind, the most product - come from?
I think it comes from one of two places. The first place is the motivation for self - that what I am doing will ultimately benefit me in some way and I can see the way that it will benefit me. This is why people work at low-paying jobs to do the things they love or workout when it's convenient or not, because they see the ultimate good.
The other place is the motivation of others - that what I am doing is ultimately going to benefit someone else and I can see the way that it will benefit them. This again can be as simple as working at something I don't love to support my family or doing something that is tedious and thankless because it serves a larger purpose, such as cooking a meal for someone who needs it or enforcing regulations to make sure a product that is supposed to help someone is well made.
There is an alternative, as Carnegie puts it, one that many people are simply not willing to acknowledge but is arguably as expected as the law of gravity: if you can't or won't self motivate, there is only one other option: mediocrity. And this mediocrity you must be content with - if you will not work with the one, you will have the other.
So here's the question, a question that as I think about it I'm sure companies, corporation, teams and governments have asked throughout history: how do we get those who are under us to motivate themselves?
It's a good question. People who are motivated are generally better workers, more careful workers, and more driven workers. Even if what they are doing is not directly related to the source of their motivation, they do what they do because of that motivation.
(And when I use worker I use it in the largest sense possible: you can substitute creators, volunteers, parents, etc. It's doing anything that relates to the motivation).
What's your motivation? What's mine? If we don't know, if we can't verbalize it and understand, we are almost certainly doomed to mediocrity - and this is something we can only blame ourselves for.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Conversations
How much time do we spend on the fluff of life?
I'm calling to mind a conversation I had yesterday. Someone I've known a long time. It's one of those moments where, halfway in, you suddenly realize that your doing all the talking about things and they have revealed nothing about themselves or how they are doing - and they seem okay with that.
I understand that we don't necessarily want or need to know everything about everyone's life (although some strangers seem intent on sharing it with us), but for those that are close to us, who know us, we too often seem to spend time talking about nothing instead of the serious aspects of life. We play at having conversations, not realizing that those who know us are better than any other at evaluating us.
Is it boundary setting? Is it the unconscious admission that those who know us best have the ability to hurt us the most? Or is it nothing that simple, more of a simple fear that we don't want to talk about some things because we don't want to be challenged or hear words that make us examine ourselves?
Let's be fair - I'm as bad as anyone about this. How many times have I turned the conversation to well worn gags and old phrases rather than the things that need to be said because I'm not ready to deal with something?
It occurs to me that to truly have meaningful conversations, one has to be hungry to grow. To learn. To become knowledgeable - about self, about others, about anything. But one has to be hungry - so hungry to grow, to embrace excellence (not perfection of course, because we'll never be there this side of Heaven), to become the best we can be that we are willing to hear the hard words, to think the challenging thoughts, to risk coming out of the shell of preprogrammed conversations into the light of knowledge.
Are we that hungry?
I'm calling to mind a conversation I had yesterday. Someone I've known a long time. It's one of those moments where, halfway in, you suddenly realize that your doing all the talking about things and they have revealed nothing about themselves or how they are doing - and they seem okay with that.
I understand that we don't necessarily want or need to know everything about everyone's life (although some strangers seem intent on sharing it with us), but for those that are close to us, who know us, we too often seem to spend time talking about nothing instead of the serious aspects of life. We play at having conversations, not realizing that those who know us are better than any other at evaluating us.
Is it boundary setting? Is it the unconscious admission that those who know us best have the ability to hurt us the most? Or is it nothing that simple, more of a simple fear that we don't want to talk about some things because we don't want to be challenged or hear words that make us examine ourselves?
Let's be fair - I'm as bad as anyone about this. How many times have I turned the conversation to well worn gags and old phrases rather than the things that need to be said because I'm not ready to deal with something?
It occurs to me that to truly have meaningful conversations, one has to be hungry to grow. To learn. To become knowledgeable - about self, about others, about anything. But one has to be hungry - so hungry to grow, to embrace excellence (not perfection of course, because we'll never be there this side of Heaven), to become the best we can be that we are willing to hear the hard words, to think the challenging thoughts, to risk coming out of the shell of preprogrammed conversations into the light of knowledge.
Are we that hungry?
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Sparring
I am not very good at confrontation.
I'm not sure why this is. It's not as if I have problems dealing with people - certainly I make it a point to try to build good relationships with others. But when it comes to confrontation, to confronting the very hard issues, I always seem to find myself unable to effectively do it.
Why? Is it because I feel that disagreement is like anger and not helpful? Is it because I empathize too much with being on the disagreed side? Is it because I have ingrained into myself that I should always be humble, and humble means letting others have the upper hand? Not sure - I only know that I'm not good at it.
It happened again yesterday with a colleague. The conversation went something like this:
"I see we've dropped out X." (colleague)
"Yes, yes we have." (Me)
"Why? It was useful."
"Because it's going to be duplicated and I don't really have the resources to put one in each thing. We're the one's that will have to do it."
"We'll see."
And so I sit in my office, feeling slightly defensive and upset about actually saying "No" to someone.
But as I sat and thought about it, I realized I had the same problem with sparring.
Sparring, in Iaido, is not the typical full scale armored sparring of Kendo (although we do some of that as well). Instead, it's practicing cuts and blocks with a partner. What I have noticed over the last three years of doing this is I'm not the best sparring partner. Why? Because I tend to be more concerned about hurting the other person unintentionally than I am about making sure I get the cut or block correct.
It's easier, of course, if I am with someone whom I know their ability - but for someone who is unknown, I tend to compensate on one side rather than the other. More important not to hurt than to get the cut right.
Then I realized they're no different.
Concern about the other party has to be paramount of course - in life as in Iaido (and isn't all life Iaido?), wantonly waving a sword around is as harmful as flinging words like grenades. But neither should one overpower the other: being kind to a killer will get you killed, just as being less than fair to yourself means that you will constantly let others determine the course of your day - and your life.
Will it mean that I suddenly become more powerful and less avoiding of confrontation? No more than it means I'll start smack people on the heads if their nigashi blocks are not effective. But at least I'm now aware.
And awareness is the first step to addressing the problem.
I'm not sure why this is. It's not as if I have problems dealing with people - certainly I make it a point to try to build good relationships with others. But when it comes to confrontation, to confronting the very hard issues, I always seem to find myself unable to effectively do it.
Why? Is it because I feel that disagreement is like anger and not helpful? Is it because I empathize too much with being on the disagreed side? Is it because I have ingrained into myself that I should always be humble, and humble means letting others have the upper hand? Not sure - I only know that I'm not good at it.
It happened again yesterday with a colleague. The conversation went something like this:
"I see we've dropped out X." (colleague)
"Yes, yes we have." (Me)
"Why? It was useful."
"Because it's going to be duplicated and I don't really have the resources to put one in each thing. We're the one's that will have to do it."
"We'll see."
And so I sit in my office, feeling slightly defensive and upset about actually saying "No" to someone.
But as I sat and thought about it, I realized I had the same problem with sparring.
Sparring, in Iaido, is not the typical full scale armored sparring of Kendo (although we do some of that as well). Instead, it's practicing cuts and blocks with a partner. What I have noticed over the last three years of doing this is I'm not the best sparring partner. Why? Because I tend to be more concerned about hurting the other person unintentionally than I am about making sure I get the cut or block correct.
It's easier, of course, if I am with someone whom I know their ability - but for someone who is unknown, I tend to compensate on one side rather than the other. More important not to hurt than to get the cut right.
Then I realized they're no different.
Concern about the other party has to be paramount of course - in life as in Iaido (and isn't all life Iaido?), wantonly waving a sword around is as harmful as flinging words like grenades. But neither should one overpower the other: being kind to a killer will get you killed, just as being less than fair to yourself means that you will constantly let others determine the course of your day - and your life.
Will it mean that I suddenly become more powerful and less avoiding of confrontation? No more than it means I'll start smack people on the heads if their nigashi blocks are not effective. But at least I'm now aware.
And awareness is the first step to addressing the problem.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Looking for the Answer in the Wrong Question
As regular readers of this blog know, I'm a little bit frustrated with my current line of work. It's not specifically the job itself but the career path I seem to have chosen. It's not a bad career path at all - in fact, it's allowed me to do many things I would not have otherwise done - but the older I get and the longer I'm in the field (this is my 15th year), the more trapped I feel.
One solution, of course, is to explore other options. But this hasn't been the raging success I thought it would be either. Times are tough all over - my industry is no different - and there are plenty of skilled people out there that are looking for work. I also wonder in my heart of hearts if I've reached the level I'm going to reach - after all, I'm a non-industry professional in an industry of professionals. At some point, perhaps explanations and rationalizations simply don't work as they used to.
Yesterday I had the unmitigated privilege of working again on my book - in this case, cover design and final drafting. Cover design is a wonderful thing if you have the tools (and thanks to technology, even I have the tools to do it). The day was only marred by a random error in file conversion I can't quite figure out -but this, too, will happen in time (and that time will pretty much be today!).
As I compared the two things in my mind this morning - getting ready for the one while anticipating the other - I suddenly was hit by the thought that maybe the reason I'm not finding success in what I do is not the reason I thought it was. Maybe it's that I'm looking for the answer in the wrong place.
Do not misconstrue what I'm saying - by no means do I believe that upon publishing my manuscript will become anything like a bestseller and I'll be able to quite my day job (nice to dream, of course, but let's be practical). I'll simply be happy if I make back my investment.
But what it will do for me is twofold: 1) It will be the accomplishment of a long time goal; and 2) if I sell one copy - one - I will have proved to myself that I can do it. I can be a writer. And more importantly, the time I invest in writing and creating books may very well be better spent than the time I spending looking for something else.
Maybe - possibly - the answer is not coming here because it is over somewhere else.
I'll keep working hard of course, and trying to improve my current career skills - after all, better the bird in hand. But I also need to allow for the possibility that the answer I am seeking is not where I'm looking at all. It may actually be behind me in the box I keep of the things I thought I could never do.
One solution, of course, is to explore other options. But this hasn't been the raging success I thought it would be either. Times are tough all over - my industry is no different - and there are plenty of skilled people out there that are looking for work. I also wonder in my heart of hearts if I've reached the level I'm going to reach - after all, I'm a non-industry professional in an industry of professionals. At some point, perhaps explanations and rationalizations simply don't work as they used to.
Yesterday I had the unmitigated privilege of working again on my book - in this case, cover design and final drafting. Cover design is a wonderful thing if you have the tools (and thanks to technology, even I have the tools to do it). The day was only marred by a random error in file conversion I can't quite figure out -but this, too, will happen in time (and that time will pretty much be today!).
As I compared the two things in my mind this morning - getting ready for the one while anticipating the other - I suddenly was hit by the thought that maybe the reason I'm not finding success in what I do is not the reason I thought it was. Maybe it's that I'm looking for the answer in the wrong place.
Do not misconstrue what I'm saying - by no means do I believe that upon publishing my manuscript will become anything like a bestseller and I'll be able to quite my day job (nice to dream, of course, but let's be practical). I'll simply be happy if I make back my investment.
But what it will do for me is twofold: 1) It will be the accomplishment of a long time goal; and 2) if I sell one copy - one - I will have proved to myself that I can do it. I can be a writer. And more importantly, the time I invest in writing and creating books may very well be better spent than the time I spending looking for something else.
Maybe - possibly - the answer is not coming here because it is over somewhere else.
I'll keep working hard of course, and trying to improve my current career skills - after all, better the bird in hand. But I also need to allow for the possibility that the answer I am seeking is not where I'm looking at all. It may actually be behind me in the box I keep of the things I thought I could never do.
Friday, June 08, 2012
Verbal Spam Filter
So my posting to my friendly neighborhood spammers (located here) three weeks ago was not as successful as I might have been hoping for. Sure, I was not anticipating a sudden cessation of all spamming activity, but at least a lessening of it. I was disappointed to learn that was not the case.
So I went the next step up to moderating comments. This was not an improvement either, as it continued to keep the spam comments out the regular stream - but I had to continue to delete them on a daily basis.
Then, out of desperation, I did the one thing I typically hate doing on other sites: I required typing in a character recognition to make sure that an individual was entering them. Suddenly, all the spam went away.
This has been quite a relief. Yes, I know it's a minor annoyance, but it's the principle of the thing that makes the absence of it all the better.
Why do I write about this? Because I realized yesterday that I am exposed to a lot of verbal spam as well - and I sure wish I could block it.
Verbal spam? The things people say that are not at all related to anything. The things said to shock, or occasionally hurt. And certainly, the things said to remind one that you are lesser than others.
Wouldn't it be convenient to have the equivalent of a verbal spam filter - something you could simply throw up around your ears and verify the nature of the communication before it comes through? Would it change the situation - no, possibly not at all.
But at least, like with my visual spam, it would give simple sigh of relief - and unburden our spirits from a great deal of verbal information that we're better without.
So I went the next step up to moderating comments. This was not an improvement either, as it continued to keep the spam comments out the regular stream - but I had to continue to delete them on a daily basis.
Then, out of desperation, I did the one thing I typically hate doing on other sites: I required typing in a character recognition to make sure that an individual was entering them. Suddenly, all the spam went away.
This has been quite a relief. Yes, I know it's a minor annoyance, but it's the principle of the thing that makes the absence of it all the better.
Why do I write about this? Because I realized yesterday that I am exposed to a lot of verbal spam as well - and I sure wish I could block it.
Verbal spam? The things people say that are not at all related to anything. The things said to shock, or occasionally hurt. And certainly, the things said to remind one that you are lesser than others.
Wouldn't it be convenient to have the equivalent of a verbal spam filter - something you could simply throw up around your ears and verify the nature of the communication before it comes through? Would it change the situation - no, possibly not at all.
But at least, like with my visual spam, it would give simple sigh of relief - and unburden our spirits from a great deal of verbal information that we're better without.
Thursday, June 07, 2012
Lurching Forward
Somewhere yesterday, between getting in the car to go to work and getting home, I made the mental commitment that I was going to finish getting my book ready for print.
I went through and did my last check of the fifth draft. Today I'll convert it to the approved template, print it tomorrow, and then do another edit job. At least one more print out draft and edit then upload, leaving only the cover to design the marketing plan to finish.
It's curious, as if I reflect on things it's not often I make this kind of commitment and (apparently) am going to see it through. What changed? Certainly not the drive to work or my environment, nor virtually anything else about my life.
Except remembering a gift from Uisdean Ruadh.
A year or two ago I received a package from him in the mail. Upon opening it, I found a medal issued to commemorate World War II. On one side is a figure of Victory in front of the sunset with the words "World War II". On the back in an outer circle is "United States of America 1941-1945"; in the middle are the Four Freedoms of Roosevelt: "Freedom from Fear and Want; Freedom of Speech and Religion." In asking him about it, he said that he had sent it to me as a reminder that as hard as things seemed to be (in his life and my own), they were not nearly as hard as the men who fought in World War II.
I have kept the medal at my bedside since then but not really thought of it - until (because yesterday was June 6th - D-Day), it leapt out at my mind. Surely, the thought came, if men could willing hurl themselves up beaches into withering fire, I can at least accept responsibility for making my own commitments and own life, even if it meant not getting a little bit of sleep.
I'm not going to say I've totally climbed that hill yet - but I've decided to start taking the medal with me where I go, to work or at my writing desk or wherever, as a continued reminder that whatever what I am called to do, it's more manageable that the last sounds of the boat ramp dropping and the surf rolling in as the firing starts.
I went through and did my last check of the fifth draft. Today I'll convert it to the approved template, print it tomorrow, and then do another edit job. At least one more print out draft and edit then upload, leaving only the cover to design the marketing plan to finish.
It's curious, as if I reflect on things it's not often I make this kind of commitment and (apparently) am going to see it through. What changed? Certainly not the drive to work or my environment, nor virtually anything else about my life.
Except remembering a gift from Uisdean Ruadh.
A year or two ago I received a package from him in the mail. Upon opening it, I found a medal issued to commemorate World War II. On one side is a figure of Victory in front of the sunset with the words "World War II". On the back in an outer circle is "United States of America 1941-1945"; in the middle are the Four Freedoms of Roosevelt: "Freedom from Fear and Want; Freedom of Speech and Religion." In asking him about it, he said that he had sent it to me as a reminder that as hard as things seemed to be (in his life and my own), they were not nearly as hard as the men who fought in World War II.
I have kept the medal at my bedside since then but not really thought of it - until (because yesterday was June 6th - D-Day), it leapt out at my mind. Surely, the thought came, if men could willing hurl themselves up beaches into withering fire, I can at least accept responsibility for making my own commitments and own life, even if it meant not getting a little bit of sleep.
I'm not going to say I've totally climbed that hill yet - but I've decided to start taking the medal with me where I go, to work or at my writing desk or wherever, as a continued reminder that whatever what I am called to do, it's more manageable that the last sounds of the boat ramp dropping and the surf rolling in as the firing starts.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
A Note From Motivation
I'm having problems finding my motivational mojo.
I'm a little unclear precisely where the darn thing went. There were actually signs of it hanging around over the last three weeks - yet strangely, it seems to have traveled to somewhere I can't quite locate. Interestingly, it did leave me note last Sunday (about the time it seems to have disappeared)
"Dear Mr. TB:
This is a note to let you know that I'll be taking a few days off. Simply put, I need a mental health day or three. I won't be checking voice mail or e-mail. Please see Imagination or Hope for any critical issues.
Thanks, Motivation"
I checked in with Imagination and Hope. No luck there. Imagination was off somewhere maundering about the actual facts of my life versus what it wanted, and Hope simply had a sign on the door saying "End of pay period - please do not disturb".
The last conversation I had with Motivation was around Saturday or so, when we finished making cheese. He was remarkably quiet that day, responding in monosyllables to my excitement about how the cheese was turning out. The one sentence I recall was when I made a comment about the next kind of cheese we could make - his response was short "Cheese? With the complete sameness of your life, all you can talk about is cheese?"
The note followed the day later.
I keep hoping he comes back - but even if he does, what will I say to him?
I'm a little unclear precisely where the darn thing went. There were actually signs of it hanging around over the last three weeks - yet strangely, it seems to have traveled to somewhere I can't quite locate. Interestingly, it did leave me note last Sunday (about the time it seems to have disappeared)
"Dear Mr. TB:
This is a note to let you know that I'll be taking a few days off. Simply put, I need a mental health day or three. I won't be checking voice mail or e-mail. Please see Imagination or Hope for any critical issues.
Thanks, Motivation"
I checked in with Imagination and Hope. No luck there. Imagination was off somewhere maundering about the actual facts of my life versus what it wanted, and Hope simply had a sign on the door saying "End of pay period - please do not disturb".
The last conversation I had with Motivation was around Saturday or so, when we finished making cheese. He was remarkably quiet that day, responding in monosyllables to my excitement about how the cheese was turning out. The one sentence I recall was when I made a comment about the next kind of cheese we could make - his response was short "Cheese? With the complete sameness of your life, all you can talk about is cheese?"
The note followed the day later.
I keep hoping he comes back - but even if he does, what will I say to him?
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Paneled Houses, Ruined Temple
"In the second year of king Darius, in the sixth month, on the first day, the word of the Lord came by Haggai the prophet to Zerubabbel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah and Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, saying "Thus speaks the LORD of hosts saying 'This people says "The time has not come, the time that the LORD's house should be built.'"
Then the word of the Lord came by Haggai the prophet, saying 'Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses and this temple to lie in ruins?'" - Haggai 1: 1-3
One of my resolutions this year was to work on memorizing three books of the Bible. I have finished my first one - Titus - and moved on to the Old Testament. I chose Haggai because because 1) I've taught on it before, and 2) It's short (38 verses).
As I began on Haggai, the above three verses leaped out at me.
Why? Because so often I have found myself saying the exact same thing. Oh, it's not that the Lord's temple needs to be built (Old Testament stuff, of course). But in my own life, how much is there that God has called us - me - to do?
Interestingly, although works do not save us, God has plenty to say about what we should be about - not just in our attitudes but in our actions. He does have the expectation that I will be about building up His kingdom through actions in my family, my circle of influence and my world.
But how often do I say "Oh, the time has not come"? More than I probably should.
My intentions are, I'm sure, seemingly justifiable: I'm already so busy and there's so much to do. I'm sure if God really wanted me to be doing something, He'd make it self evident that's what I should be doing.
But God doesn't necessarily see it that way - it's not a question of time, it's a question of importance.
Surely the Israelites were busy too - rebuilding a ruined city in a conquered land, worrying about protection from enemies, struggling to get crops in. It's that they apparently found the time to build paneled houses - houses that were paneled with cedar, or houses that were improved, a sort of 5th Century B.C. home upgrade - but could find no time to rebuild God's temple. I'm sure if you asked them they too would have said "We're so busy just trying to stay alive. Sure, we have some fruits of our labor from that, but we're still really busy, and I'm sure God doesn't mind. Yes, I know God wants His temple rebuilt but after all, He hasn't given us a clear sign in a long time - I mean, we had to stop 16 years ago and He never really said "Start" - and we're so busy trying to stay alive. Whoops - if you'll pardon me, the paneling oiling and house cleaning service is here. Need to go let them in."
God's response "Is it a time for you" suggests He doesn't see it that way at all. He turns their words against them - Not just "The time has not come" but implied "The time has not come for you (because you're too busy about yourselves), the time that the LORD's house should be rebuilt - but is it time for you to build your own lives and neglect Me?"
If the focus is there - building God's kingdom instead of our own - how do we fare? How do I? Or am I too busy putting in my own panels to realize that the time to do God's will is always first and always now?
Then the word of the Lord came by Haggai the prophet, saying 'Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses and this temple to lie in ruins?'" - Haggai 1: 1-3
One of my resolutions this year was to work on memorizing three books of the Bible. I have finished my first one - Titus - and moved on to the Old Testament. I chose Haggai because because 1) I've taught on it before, and 2) It's short (38 verses).
As I began on Haggai, the above three verses leaped out at me.
Why? Because so often I have found myself saying the exact same thing. Oh, it's not that the Lord's temple needs to be built (Old Testament stuff, of course). But in my own life, how much is there that God has called us - me - to do?
Interestingly, although works do not save us, God has plenty to say about what we should be about - not just in our attitudes but in our actions. He does have the expectation that I will be about building up His kingdom through actions in my family, my circle of influence and my world.
But how often do I say "Oh, the time has not come"? More than I probably should.
My intentions are, I'm sure, seemingly justifiable: I'm already so busy and there's so much to do. I'm sure if God really wanted me to be doing something, He'd make it self evident that's what I should be doing.
But God doesn't necessarily see it that way - it's not a question of time, it's a question of importance.
Surely the Israelites were busy too - rebuilding a ruined city in a conquered land, worrying about protection from enemies, struggling to get crops in. It's that they apparently found the time to build paneled houses - houses that were paneled with cedar, or houses that were improved, a sort of 5th Century B.C. home upgrade - but could find no time to rebuild God's temple. I'm sure if you asked them they too would have said "We're so busy just trying to stay alive. Sure, we have some fruits of our labor from that, but we're still really busy, and I'm sure God doesn't mind. Yes, I know God wants His temple rebuilt but after all, He hasn't given us a clear sign in a long time - I mean, we had to stop 16 years ago and He never really said "Start" - and we're so busy trying to stay alive. Whoops - if you'll pardon me, the paneling oiling and house cleaning service is here. Need to go let them in."
God's response "Is it a time for you" suggests He doesn't see it that way at all. He turns their words against them - Not just "The time has not come" but implied "The time has not come for you (because you're too busy about yourselves), the time that the LORD's house should be rebuilt - but is it time for you to build your own lives and neglect Me?"
If the focus is there - building God's kingdom instead of our own - how do we fare? How do I? Or am I too busy putting in my own panels to realize that the time to do God's will is always first and always now?
Monday, June 04, 2012
Three Years
Yesterday was my three year anniversary of moving to New Home.
Interestingly, The Ravishing Mrs. TB and I were discussing this very weekend the fact that overall, this move has been good. Na Clann have really blossomed in their school and their activities. The Ravishing Mrs. TB has made new friends, become heavily involved in Girl Scouts and the girls' school and was able to find a part time job to accommodate this. We are involved in a good church. We have a plethora of animals that we probably never would have had if we had not moved.
The only less than desirable thing, honestly, has been how my career has worked out.
I idly wonder, in off moments, about what would have been. What if I had not made the leap to the company that went out of business, that I was still working where I had worked. I'm pretty sure I would still have a job - but I would also have the 1.5 hour commute in the morning and 2 hour commute in the afternoon, all with gas prices about 1/3 again what I was paying before I left. Yes, we would still have our house (but be terribly underwater) and yes, we would be much nearer our family - but the other opportunities might not be there, and I'm not sure my career would be any better than what it is now.
So how do I evaluate the impact of the move? Good for everyone else? Okay for me? If the reverse were true - good for me, not so good for everyone else - would that make it justifiably better?
I suppose, on the whole, the correct view to take is the since everyone seems to be doing well, we view it as a package, not with its individual components. Everyone is doing well - and I'm doing okay - so overall it's a good thing.
The fact that I have these curious longing and faint sighings are, I suppose, such a thing that need only be borne by myself.
Interestingly, The Ravishing Mrs. TB and I were discussing this very weekend the fact that overall, this move has been good. Na Clann have really blossomed in their school and their activities. The Ravishing Mrs. TB has made new friends, become heavily involved in Girl Scouts and the girls' school and was able to find a part time job to accommodate this. We are involved in a good church. We have a plethora of animals that we probably never would have had if we had not moved.
The only less than desirable thing, honestly, has been how my career has worked out.
I idly wonder, in off moments, about what would have been. What if I had not made the leap to the company that went out of business, that I was still working where I had worked. I'm pretty sure I would still have a job - but I would also have the 1.5 hour commute in the morning and 2 hour commute in the afternoon, all with gas prices about 1/3 again what I was paying before I left. Yes, we would still have our house (but be terribly underwater) and yes, we would be much nearer our family - but the other opportunities might not be there, and I'm not sure my career would be any better than what it is now.
So how do I evaluate the impact of the move? Good for everyone else? Okay for me? If the reverse were true - good for me, not so good for everyone else - would that make it justifiably better?
I suppose, on the whole, the correct view to take is the since everyone seems to be doing well, we view it as a package, not with its individual components. Everyone is doing well - and I'm doing okay - so overall it's a good thing.
The fact that I have these curious longing and faint sighings are, I suppose, such a thing that need only be borne by myself.
Friday, June 01, 2012
Control and Attitude
How do I deal with the fact that I don't - really don't - control most of my life?
I pondered this thought late into the day last night, brought on by a conversation I did not intend to have from someone I did not expect. The conversation was on my attitude - which at work could be marginally said to be somewhat less than positive - but the thought followed me home long after I left. Why am I so often negative? Why do I do the things that I do?
As I continued to roll the conversation around in my mind, what I came to find is that I really, really perceive myself to have very little control over the things in my life. So much of what I do seems to mandated - by my responsibilities, by the decisions of people above me, by people around me doing their own things.
For the purposes of analyzing my attitude, I sat down and made a list of what I actually could control at work. The list was much smaller than I imagined, and seemingly lacked any impact. I listed that I could control:
- My attitude
- My responses
- My work output
- My personal adherence to the rules and regulations
- My education about my work
That's it. It's not a very spectacular list, and you'll be quick to note that there's not one thing there about any particular item, activity, or program. That's because I don't really control those either, even as I don't (and have never) controlled the direction of anywhere I've worked, the decisions that are made, or the future of the company.
What does my response seem to be? Go for those things I perceive I can control, which is generally my attitude (often not good) and eating. Eating? Because it's the one thing I can completely choose to do or not.
So how do I confront this? It's pretty clear - if I'm willing to take a long hard look at myself - that it does need to be changed, if for no other reason than this will eventually do me in.
The problem I seem to confront is it's as if I'm throwing everything down a rat hole. I literally have no expectation or belief that 100% really does anything - when your job function is described as performing "thankless tasks" and what you do scarcely translates into the only sorts of recognition available, you tend to lose any confidence that more effort makes a difference.
But in theory, that's where the Christian work ethic should be different. God clearly speaks about how we should work (let that "Do all things without grumbling or complaining" of Philippians 2:14 sink in for awhile), and having reviewed them again last night there's nothing there that talks about any sense of doing things based on your sense of control. I'm told to obedient to my employers with all respect, to be well pleasing in all things, not responding poorly, not stealing, showing all good fidelity, doing things well whether someone is watching or not, as if I was working for God (and again, the no grumbling or complaining thing). You'll notice these speak to attitude, responses, output, how I work, and how I equip myself to work - surprisingly the same as the list above.
And the result? This for me is the terrifying part: leave it up to God.
I have problems processing this.
This feels like the ultimate abandonment: to simply give up any expectation of any result and continue to work on the things I can control, giving 100% every day with no anticipation that it will control anything or lead to anything greater, because that is what God commands me to do. Any reward, any greater control or arena of service, will be totally up to Him.
(On a side note, it should probably bother me that this feels so much like dying when it's such a little thing compared to the actual problems that people face every day: cancer, death, hunger, even the simple fact of not having a job and wanting one.)
But there is one fact buried in all of that: if I do that, at least I am working on those things I can control. If I want control, it's there for the taking - just not on the things that I feel matter.
But how long into a career - or life - can someone go constantly chasing the control they can never have without eventually destroying the very things that they could control? And how much longer would it take until the very fabric of their life and personality is also impacted?
And if it was, would we know?
I pondered this thought late into the day last night, brought on by a conversation I did not intend to have from someone I did not expect. The conversation was on my attitude - which at work could be marginally said to be somewhat less than positive - but the thought followed me home long after I left. Why am I so often negative? Why do I do the things that I do?
As I continued to roll the conversation around in my mind, what I came to find is that I really, really perceive myself to have very little control over the things in my life. So much of what I do seems to mandated - by my responsibilities, by the decisions of people above me, by people around me doing their own things.
For the purposes of analyzing my attitude, I sat down and made a list of what I actually could control at work. The list was much smaller than I imagined, and seemingly lacked any impact. I listed that I could control:
- My attitude
- My responses
- My work output
- My personal adherence to the rules and regulations
- My education about my work
That's it. It's not a very spectacular list, and you'll be quick to note that there's not one thing there about any particular item, activity, or program. That's because I don't really control those either, even as I don't (and have never) controlled the direction of anywhere I've worked, the decisions that are made, or the future of the company.
What does my response seem to be? Go for those things I perceive I can control, which is generally my attitude (often not good) and eating. Eating? Because it's the one thing I can completely choose to do or not.
So how do I confront this? It's pretty clear - if I'm willing to take a long hard look at myself - that it does need to be changed, if for no other reason than this will eventually do me in.
The problem I seem to confront is it's as if I'm throwing everything down a rat hole. I literally have no expectation or belief that 100% really does anything - when your job function is described as performing "thankless tasks" and what you do scarcely translates into the only sorts of recognition available, you tend to lose any confidence that more effort makes a difference.
But in theory, that's where the Christian work ethic should be different. God clearly speaks about how we should work (let that "Do all things without grumbling or complaining" of Philippians 2:14 sink in for awhile), and having reviewed them again last night there's nothing there that talks about any sense of doing things based on your sense of control. I'm told to obedient to my employers with all respect, to be well pleasing in all things, not responding poorly, not stealing, showing all good fidelity, doing things well whether someone is watching or not, as if I was working for God (and again, the no grumbling or complaining thing). You'll notice these speak to attitude, responses, output, how I work, and how I equip myself to work - surprisingly the same as the list above.
And the result? This for me is the terrifying part: leave it up to God.
I have problems processing this.
This feels like the ultimate abandonment: to simply give up any expectation of any result and continue to work on the things I can control, giving 100% every day with no anticipation that it will control anything or lead to anything greater, because that is what God commands me to do. Any reward, any greater control or arena of service, will be totally up to Him.
(On a side note, it should probably bother me that this feels so much like dying when it's such a little thing compared to the actual problems that people face every day: cancer, death, hunger, even the simple fact of not having a job and wanting one.)
But there is one fact buried in all of that: if I do that, at least I am working on those things I can control. If I want control, it's there for the taking - just not on the things that I feel matter.
But how long into a career - or life - can someone go constantly chasing the control they can never have without eventually destroying the very things that they could control? And how much longer would it take until the very fabric of their life and personality is also impacted?
And if it was, would we know?
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The Sounds of Silence
Today I go pick up The Ravishing Mrs. TB and Na Clann from the airport from their visit to the land of Mouse Ears.
It's been an interesting six days, made all the more interesting that three of the days were either the weekend or a holiday. For once in a long while I can make the statement that I plenty of time to get done what I needed to do.
And was it a productive time? Yes. I got a great deal done over the weekend: Planned my garden and planted some peppers and tomatoes, made two kinds of cheese, took care of the pets, weed-ate (past tense of weed-eat?) the backyard, went to church, went to Half Price Books (twice), had breakfast and coffee with Snowflake, read, watched four movies (for me, that's like four months' worth), made the decision to self-publish and started the process of actually getting the book ready (I have an ISBN!), caught up 9 months of finances, practiced Iaido, and even got to sleep 8 hours of sleep a night. A pretty productive time indeed.
But even with all this productivity, all this energy, all this time to do what I want to do, there has been a sense of missing something in my life. That something is my family.
It's odd. When everyone is here, I sometimes cannot take the level of noise. Sometimes the state of the house frustrates me. Alone time becomes something that I actively seek out to (probably) retreat from the seeming chaos.
But in the chaos is the very thing that I need: relationships. Roles. Even Responsibilities. Occasionally fun as well. But always Love.
So I'll go to the airport tonight, pick everyone up, and be regaled with stories of rides and experiences and rainstorms and how tired we all are. Everyone will eat and then sleep, and I'll be left in the silence of the house once again.
But a house full, rather than a house empty.
It's been an interesting six days, made all the more interesting that three of the days were either the weekend or a holiday. For once in a long while I can make the statement that I plenty of time to get done what I needed to do.
And was it a productive time? Yes. I got a great deal done over the weekend: Planned my garden and planted some peppers and tomatoes, made two kinds of cheese, took care of the pets, weed-ate (past tense of weed-eat?) the backyard, went to church, went to Half Price Books (twice), had breakfast and coffee with Snowflake, read, watched four movies (for me, that's like four months' worth), made the decision to self-publish and started the process of actually getting the book ready (I have an ISBN!), caught up 9 months of finances, practiced Iaido, and even got to sleep 8 hours of sleep a night. A pretty productive time indeed.
But even with all this productivity, all this energy, all this time to do what I want to do, there has been a sense of missing something in my life. That something is my family.
It's odd. When everyone is here, I sometimes cannot take the level of noise. Sometimes the state of the house frustrates me. Alone time becomes something that I actively seek out to (probably) retreat from the seeming chaos.
But in the chaos is the very thing that I need: relationships. Roles. Even Responsibilities. Occasionally fun as well. But always Love.
So I'll go to the airport tonight, pick everyone up, and be regaled with stories of rides and experiences and rainstorms and how tired we all are. Everyone will eat and then sleep, and I'll be left in the silence of the house once again.
But a house full, rather than a house empty.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Decision
So I started running down the road of self publishing yesterday.
In looking around at the Internet and myself, what I have come to realize is that I continually keep making excuses for not getting this thing done. Sure, I can send my manuscript through one more round of reviews (and it needs it), but then I start going through the secondary part, the "I need to get information on publishers and or agents, I need to send letters, I need to wait."
I need to wait. Is it that I need to wait, or that I have reached a point where it is convenient for me to use that as an excuse for not doing more?
In a world of YouTube, I-Pads, Twitter, Facebook, Blogs and Kindle, the reality is that waiting is one option - but it's not the only one.
There is one thing though, a thing beyond the money outlay (which seems to be minimal in this case): it's believing in one's self.
That's the thing. That's the point of all of the technology listed above. It's all there and makes putting something out in the public eye easier than ever, but it presupposes that you believe in what it is that you are putting out. And belief is demonstrated by taking the final step of putting your product out on the market and not making excuses.
And maybe, perhaps for the first time since October 2008 when this become a possibility, the years of making excuses for waiting on others and the simple fact of achieving a goal will be reality.
In looking around at the Internet and myself, what I have come to realize is that I continually keep making excuses for not getting this thing done. Sure, I can send my manuscript through one more round of reviews (and it needs it), but then I start going through the secondary part, the "I need to get information on publishers and or agents, I need to send letters, I need to wait."
I need to wait. Is it that I need to wait, or that I have reached a point where it is convenient for me to use that as an excuse for not doing more?
In a world of YouTube, I-Pads, Twitter, Facebook, Blogs and Kindle, the reality is that waiting is one option - but it's not the only one.
There is one thing though, a thing beyond the money outlay (which seems to be minimal in this case): it's believing in one's self.
That's the thing. That's the point of all of the technology listed above. It's all there and makes putting something out in the public eye easier than ever, but it presupposes that you believe in what it is that you are putting out. And belief is demonstrated by taking the final step of putting your product out on the market and not making excuses.
And maybe, perhaps for the first time since October 2008 when this become a possibility, the years of making excuses for waiting on others and the simple fact of achieving a goal will be reality.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Being Happy
Snowflake was in town to take care of some business this weekend, and so we had breakfast on Saturday and coffee on Sunday afternoon. On Sunday afternoon, sitting in the humid New Home air, she asks "Where is Happy Toirdhealbheach Beucail? You need to find him."
Where is happy me? It was easy enough to make a comment at the time - "I'm sure he's running around somewhere south of here - but as I went through the rest of my day, the question stuck with me. Where is happy me?
Am I ever really happy? A fair enough question with probably a less than fair answer. Not a lot.
So often it feels like I am going through the motions of my life more because I have to rather than any sense of wanting to. Yes, I understand this is the way it works in many aspects, but the truth is that there is very little - if anything - I anticipate ahead of time from week to week.
Has this happened suddenly or has this been a gradual descent? I'm too much in myself to full appreciate that, so I'll probably have to go with the general observations of those around me that yes, this has been sort of a long term thing.
Is it depression? I'm not sure- if it is, it is not the typical depressions I have faced in the sense of a severe sense of hopelessness. The sense is characterized more by a sense of blandness, of things that used to bring joy no longer doing so, of a sense of a long march to the sea without any anticipation the destination will be desirable.
If happy me is gone, where do I go to find him?
Where is happy me? It was easy enough to make a comment at the time - "I'm sure he's running around somewhere south of here - but as I went through the rest of my day, the question stuck with me. Where is happy me?
Am I ever really happy? A fair enough question with probably a less than fair answer. Not a lot.
So often it feels like I am going through the motions of my life more because I have to rather than any sense of wanting to. Yes, I understand this is the way it works in many aspects, but the truth is that there is very little - if anything - I anticipate ahead of time from week to week.
Has this happened suddenly or has this been a gradual descent? I'm too much in myself to full appreciate that, so I'll probably have to go with the general observations of those around me that yes, this has been sort of a long term thing.
Is it depression? I'm not sure- if it is, it is not the typical depressions I have faced in the sense of a severe sense of hopelessness. The sense is characterized more by a sense of blandness, of things that used to bring joy no longer doing so, of a sense of a long march to the sea without any anticipation the destination will be desirable.
If happy me is gone, where do I go to find him?
Friday, May 25, 2012
Rocks and Rapids
Sometimes the interesting thing about life is that you can see a major event coming, even as you cannot control it, may have no idea what it is or any idea what you will do about it. This is the sense that I find myself haunted by these days, a sense of being directed into a channel to which I cannot see the end.
There just feels like there are multiple pieces in play in my life which I control very few of. On the one hand I simply suppose this is a truth and should be accepted, as much of life is out of our control no matter how much we pretend it is otherwise. On the other hand, there is nothing worse than being powerless.
What's in play? Having moved forward with purchasing a home, we find we are constrained by events three years ago to be out of consideration until December at best. Can we get a six month lease, or will we extend that search another six months? For work: suffice to say a storm is coming and there is little that can be done about. Virtually all of the outcomes I can think of are bad, but the alternatives are no better. Nighean Gheal will be at a transition grade this year and to pull here away from where she has been for the last three years is not the most desirable option. Contrariwise, the type of work I do is not prevalent in New Home; what other options are there, if any?
I write this things to get them out in written form; I scarcely believe that by my writing them any of them will come any closer to being resolved. But I cannot escape the sense of staring down the beach at retreating water, knowing what is coming but suspecting that no matter how far I get inland, the water will follow.
There just feels like there are multiple pieces in play in my life which I control very few of. On the one hand I simply suppose this is a truth and should be accepted, as much of life is out of our control no matter how much we pretend it is otherwise. On the other hand, there is nothing worse than being powerless.
What's in play? Having moved forward with purchasing a home, we find we are constrained by events three years ago to be out of consideration until December at best. Can we get a six month lease, or will we extend that search another six months? For work: suffice to say a storm is coming and there is little that can be done about. Virtually all of the outcomes I can think of are bad, but the alternatives are no better. Nighean Gheal will be at a transition grade this year and to pull here away from where she has been for the last three years is not the most desirable option. Contrariwise, the type of work I do is not prevalent in New Home; what other options are there, if any?
I write this things to get them out in written form; I scarcely believe that by my writing them any of them will come any closer to being resolved. But I cannot escape the sense of staring down the beach at retreating water, knowing what is coming but suspecting that no matter how far I get inland, the water will follow.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Making a Difference
One thing I've come to realize about myself over the years - and be powerfully reminded of recently - is that I want and desire to make a difference.
I want to feel like I am improving something in something that matters. I want to leave at the end of the day saying I made a difference in something that was meaningful in someone's life.
For those that know what I do, the thought may already be there that this is the case. I have worked around people's health and health conditions for 14 years. I have contributed to effort to see that things are helped on their way to the people that need them.
But I've come to realize that it is not enough just to work around it. You need to do something meaningful in it.
At the heart of my job, I'm a paper pusher and persuader. I actually have little power to do what I need to have happen, so I have to use my ability to cajole and convince to see things accomplished. But most of those things are really just short term - getting one thing done one time, only to see it swallowed up by the next immediate task.
I've a vivid memory from when I got laid off of the ultimate permanence and importance of everything I do at work - it's the memory of making files for everything, of boxing things up only to see them being sent somewhere else where they would either be used for something by a successor someday or just disposed of. It's that memory that haunts me every time I pick up a task to do - ultimately, this is all being put in a box somewhere.
Which is why working on something which is making a difference truly matters. Sure, these are trivial matters - but all things of importance have trivial matters which must be completed. It's what those trivial matters are being performed in service of that matters. I can push paperwork to sell a plastic part, or I can push paperwork to help create a drug that fights cancer. The paperwork - conceptually, anyway - is the same.
It's what it is being put in service of that makes all the difference in the world.
I want to feel like I am improving something in something that matters. I want to leave at the end of the day saying I made a difference in something that was meaningful in someone's life.
For those that know what I do, the thought may already be there that this is the case. I have worked around people's health and health conditions for 14 years. I have contributed to effort to see that things are helped on their way to the people that need them.
But I've come to realize that it is not enough just to work around it. You need to do something meaningful in it.
At the heart of my job, I'm a paper pusher and persuader. I actually have little power to do what I need to have happen, so I have to use my ability to cajole and convince to see things accomplished. But most of those things are really just short term - getting one thing done one time, only to see it swallowed up by the next immediate task.
I've a vivid memory from when I got laid off of the ultimate permanence and importance of everything I do at work - it's the memory of making files for everything, of boxing things up only to see them being sent somewhere else where they would either be used for something by a successor someday or just disposed of. It's that memory that haunts me every time I pick up a task to do - ultimately, this is all being put in a box somewhere.
Which is why working on something which is making a difference truly matters. Sure, these are trivial matters - but all things of importance have trivial matters which must be completed. It's what those trivial matters are being performed in service of that matters. I can push paperwork to sell a plastic part, or I can push paperwork to help create a drug that fights cancer. The paperwork - conceptually, anyway - is the same.
It's what it is being put in service of that makes all the difference in the world.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Hard to Believe, Hard to Live Out
How much do I crave the acceptance of others?
I'm reading Hard to Believe by John MacArthur about the watering down of the Gospel and what Christ actually said about Himself and His message. MacArthur at worst always challenges me and at best cause me to think long and hard about my life and my faith and how I live it.
As I read through the first chapter, what I as confronted with was two items: 1) The message of Christ calls for self-denial, not self fulfillment; and 2) The message of Christ is, by its very nature, offensive, and that if we preach the gospel we too will, at some level, will be offensive.
The part that I'm dwelling on is the second, the offensiveness of the Gospel and whether we try to maintain our "good" standing with others or preach it.
Offensive? The gospel of Christ is offensive if you think about to the unregenerate mind: You are a sinner and you are unable to save yourself. Salvation is available, but it means confessing that you are a sinner and have no ability to save yourself by anything you can do, only by believing that Christ came to suffer and die in your place. It's offensive because:
1) It means that we are not independent entities unto ourselves. We have a Creator and we are not the focal point of the universe.
2) It means that we are sinners. There is nothing we can do - no good we can do - that will ultimately save us.
3) It means that if we are to be saved, we need to humble ourselves, submit ourselves, and deny ourselves.
4) It means that our lives are no long interpreted by what we believe is right and wrong or what society believes is right and wrong but what God believes is right and wrong.
Note that this does not presume any attacks, any particular sins or religion, anything other than the simple message of the Gospel. Beginning to see why it would be offensive?
The question comes in how as a Christian I live it out. Do I really seek to follow Christ - to follow the Great Commission - or do I allow things to slide by because I want people to like me? Is avoiding controversy a byword for fear of speaking lest I offend?
Of course the Gospel is presented offensively - that's not what I dealing with here. What I am dealing with is the fine line between being true to what Christ said and valuing the approval of others more than what God has called me to.
Would that I loved God more - or at least denied myself more - to be true to Him.
I'm reading Hard to Believe by John MacArthur about the watering down of the Gospel and what Christ actually said about Himself and His message. MacArthur at worst always challenges me and at best cause me to think long and hard about my life and my faith and how I live it.
As I read through the first chapter, what I as confronted with was two items: 1) The message of Christ calls for self-denial, not self fulfillment; and 2) The message of Christ is, by its very nature, offensive, and that if we preach the gospel we too will, at some level, will be offensive.
The part that I'm dwelling on is the second, the offensiveness of the Gospel and whether we try to maintain our "good" standing with others or preach it.
Offensive? The gospel of Christ is offensive if you think about to the unregenerate mind: You are a sinner and you are unable to save yourself. Salvation is available, but it means confessing that you are a sinner and have no ability to save yourself by anything you can do, only by believing that Christ came to suffer and die in your place. It's offensive because:
1) It means that we are not independent entities unto ourselves. We have a Creator and we are not the focal point of the universe.
2) It means that we are sinners. There is nothing we can do - no good we can do - that will ultimately save us.
3) It means that if we are to be saved, we need to humble ourselves, submit ourselves, and deny ourselves.
4) It means that our lives are no long interpreted by what we believe is right and wrong or what society believes is right and wrong but what God believes is right and wrong.
Note that this does not presume any attacks, any particular sins or religion, anything other than the simple message of the Gospel. Beginning to see why it would be offensive?
The question comes in how as a Christian I live it out. Do I really seek to follow Christ - to follow the Great Commission - or do I allow things to slide by because I want people to like me? Is avoiding controversy a byword for fear of speaking lest I offend?
Of course the Gospel is presented offensively - that's not what I dealing with here. What I am dealing with is the fine line between being true to what Christ said and valuing the approval of others more than what God has called me to.
Would that I loved God more - or at least denied myself more - to be true to Him.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Heroes
Yesterday An Teaglach packed up and when to the local Movie emporium to watch The Avengers. The film itself was quite enjoyable to the age groups represented by our family, and we left feeling that we had actually gotten our money's worth (A rare thing nowadays).
After we left I was pondering what made the movie so enjoyable for me. Yes, it was well done and the effects were great. Yes, it had an engaging storyline and very good acting. Yes, the actors portrayed very well the pictures I had in my own mind of what the characters would be like. But there was something else, something indefinable that moved the movie from the category of enjoyable to the category of something I want to emulate in my own life.
And I then it came to me: the movie was about heroes acting like heroes - fighting evil.
We live in a world where the heroes society worships have been transformed from defending good and fighting evil to how much the touch and entertain us personally. We seek to emulate the successful, rather than emulate those who do good.
And in The Avengers, the heroes are shown as nothing other than heroes. Personal flaws? They're there in abundance. Inability to communicate? They all have issues. But never in the movie are they portrayed as anything less than people who, in the end, are seeking to fight for and defend those that need it.
We have let such a high standard fall. Heroes serve causes, or even serve themselves. We have debased the term to the point that either everyone is a "hero", or no-one is.
Which is to our detriment. If we are all our own heroes, if we only worship heroes that entertain or fulfill us, we have reduced heroism to a narrow band that encompasses ourselves. There are no greater causes, only that which ultimately serves ourselves.
And heroes which only serve themselves are, in the end, not heroes at all. They do not call out to that which is within us which is better but only reflect back a larger image of our own selfish desires.
We are, desperately, in need of true heroes - and a society that values them.
After we left I was pondering what made the movie so enjoyable for me. Yes, it was well done and the effects were great. Yes, it had an engaging storyline and very good acting. Yes, the actors portrayed very well the pictures I had in my own mind of what the characters would be like. But there was something else, something indefinable that moved the movie from the category of enjoyable to the category of something I want to emulate in my own life.
And I then it came to me: the movie was about heroes acting like heroes - fighting evil.
We live in a world where the heroes society worships have been transformed from defending good and fighting evil to how much the touch and entertain us personally. We seek to emulate the successful, rather than emulate those who do good.
And in The Avengers, the heroes are shown as nothing other than heroes. Personal flaws? They're there in abundance. Inability to communicate? They all have issues. But never in the movie are they portrayed as anything less than people who, in the end, are seeking to fight for and defend those that need it.
We have let such a high standard fall. Heroes serve causes, or even serve themselves. We have debased the term to the point that either everyone is a "hero", or no-one is.
Which is to our detriment. If we are all our own heroes, if we only worship heroes that entertain or fulfill us, we have reduced heroism to a narrow band that encompasses ourselves. There are no greater causes, only that which ultimately serves ourselves.
And heroes which only serve themselves are, in the end, not heroes at all. They do not call out to that which is within us which is better but only reflect back a larger image of our own selfish desires.
We are, desperately, in need of true heroes - and a society that values them.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Controlling Outcomes
"No matter what you set out to accomplish, if you engage the project determined to control the outcome you will be confused and confounded throughout. Some things will go well for you, and when you think you have the key to understanding other things will go badly. It may be that you do something well twice before it goes badly once. If you are happy that it went well twice, you will think you are onto something, but then it will go badly again. This is because you are trying to force the outcome by applying the same tactics to every situation instead of letting every situation flow of its own accord." - Yagyu Munenori
I wonder how many times I have tried to control the outcome and failed - that I went to something with a predetermined cast of mind of how things would be resolved in the end. Just sitting here thinking aloud, I can name several: The Firm, Da Derga, all the plans I held dear before we came to New Home.
Can one predetermine an outcome? A tricky slope at best. There is, I believe, something to the idea that thinking through and practicing something with a desired outcome in mind adds value, and that mental visualization of the end gives one a goal to shoot for. At the same time, as Otis would tell me, outcomes (at least in business) are as random and fickle as the wind: on one hand, endless effort will product nothing while on the other a chance comment will generate a success.
Can an outcome truly be predetermined? It would seem no - there is so much that we are not in control of, both outside events and people as well as internal (let's face it - we can't even control much of our bodies, let alone the world around us).
But there are things that we can control, things that we can use to influence events in our favor. Be ready, of course. Set our goaks and plan. Polish our skills and our words. Train ourselves to think in a way that we do what we set out to do.
And the outcome? If we are ready, if we have practiced, if we have skill, then we are ready. The situation, whatever it is, will flow and can be directed because we have not already determined how it should come out.
I wonder how many times I have tried to control the outcome and failed - that I went to something with a predetermined cast of mind of how things would be resolved in the end. Just sitting here thinking aloud, I can name several: The Firm, Da Derga, all the plans I held dear before we came to New Home.
Can one predetermine an outcome? A tricky slope at best. There is, I believe, something to the idea that thinking through and practicing something with a desired outcome in mind adds value, and that mental visualization of the end gives one a goal to shoot for. At the same time, as Otis would tell me, outcomes (at least in business) are as random and fickle as the wind: on one hand, endless effort will product nothing while on the other a chance comment will generate a success.
Can an outcome truly be predetermined? It would seem no - there is so much that we are not in control of, both outside events and people as well as internal (let's face it - we can't even control much of our bodies, let alone the world around us).
But there are things that we can control, things that we can use to influence events in our favor. Be ready, of course. Set our goaks and plan. Polish our skills and our words. Train ourselves to think in a way that we do what we set out to do.
And the outcome? If we are ready, if we have practiced, if we have skill, then we are ready. The situation, whatever it is, will flow and can be directed because we have not already determined how it should come out.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Running and Walking
Today was a walking morning.
I've been making a sincere effort to run in the mornings, about 2 miles or so. I've actually gotten to the point that I don't mind do it too much, and my time is not terrible - not that I'm speedy about it or anything.
But this morning, when I got up, I felt like it was a walking morning.
Walking and running are different - and not just in speed. The biggest difference is in concentration. When I run, there is some sense of a goal - I'm either running towards the halfway point, or running back from it. I also focus on the actual process of running - after all, if I pitch forward when I run it has a much more deleterious effect on my body. Running is an activity which must be done in the moment.
Walking is more of a meditative activity. When I walk, I am able to think about other things when I am doing it - to contemplate, to ponder, to meditate. I move much slower, of course - but speed is hardly the point. I can also take the time to look at things around me in a way I can't when I'm running.
Yes, there's a goal in walking as well - I do have to make it back home - but there is no sense that I am trying to reach a point or go back. Instead, it's more of a large circle that I'm making, which will lead me back to where I started.
They're both different I suppose - one more focused on the body, one more focused on the mind, but both with crossovers. I'll never speed through a 5k walking all the time, but neither will I find parts of my mind and consciousness always focusing on the next step in front of me.
So I walked this morning with a happy heart and clean conscious. It's not about always doing one or the other - it's about finding the balance between the body and the soul.
I've been making a sincere effort to run in the mornings, about 2 miles or so. I've actually gotten to the point that I don't mind do it too much, and my time is not terrible - not that I'm speedy about it or anything.
But this morning, when I got up, I felt like it was a walking morning.
Walking and running are different - and not just in speed. The biggest difference is in concentration. When I run, there is some sense of a goal - I'm either running towards the halfway point, or running back from it. I also focus on the actual process of running - after all, if I pitch forward when I run it has a much more deleterious effect on my body. Running is an activity which must be done in the moment.
Walking is more of a meditative activity. When I walk, I am able to think about other things when I am doing it - to contemplate, to ponder, to meditate. I move much slower, of course - but speed is hardly the point. I can also take the time to look at things around me in a way I can't when I'm running.
Yes, there's a goal in walking as well - I do have to make it back home - but there is no sense that I am trying to reach a point or go back. Instead, it's more of a large circle that I'm making, which will lead me back to where I started.
They're both different I suppose - one more focused on the body, one more focused on the mind, but both with crossovers. I'll never speed through a 5k walking all the time, but neither will I find parts of my mind and consciousness always focusing on the next step in front of me.
So I walked this morning with a happy heart and clean conscious. It's not about always doing one or the other - it's about finding the balance between the body and the soul.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Fear is Like Adrenaline
Fear is like adrenaline: it gives a burst of energy but will not sustain anything.
I had one of those moments yesterday: the sudden onset of the end of the world, the increased worriedness, the sense of my time suddenly having to be used to accomplish things now, now, NOW!
So immediately I tried to pick up the pace of what I did: using my time more "wisely", trying to focus purely on work, making plans for using my other time to the point of being able to dedicate more to my employ. Plans, plans, plans. Panic, panic, panic.
It managed to hold itself up almost to this morning where, like a sack that is only partially filled, it sagged to the ground spilling out its contents. I just sat there looking at them, trying to figure out a way to stuff them all back in and carry on. Suddenly, I found I had no energy (and perhaps no emotion) to do that anymore.
The odd thing (to me, I guess) is that so much of what we do and what we live in is bounded by fear. In some cases, fear seems to be the preferred environment created by some for reasons that I don't think I would be able to understand - at best, one could say that it creates a certain sort of "motivation", which it does - just not a very sustaining one.
But the only thing more difficult than reacting from fear is to not react from fear. It takes far more courage and a far stronger will, because one is making the conscious choice to slow down and act decidedly and decisively. It also takes the ability to push back on others - people or things - that create and thrive on this environment of fear.
It's hard - but the alternative is worse. One can only take this slight edge of panic constantly for so long.
I had one of those moments yesterday: the sudden onset of the end of the world, the increased worriedness, the sense of my time suddenly having to be used to accomplish things now, now, NOW!
So immediately I tried to pick up the pace of what I did: using my time more "wisely", trying to focus purely on work, making plans for using my other time to the point of being able to dedicate more to my employ. Plans, plans, plans. Panic, panic, panic.
It managed to hold itself up almost to this morning where, like a sack that is only partially filled, it sagged to the ground spilling out its contents. I just sat there looking at them, trying to figure out a way to stuff them all back in and carry on. Suddenly, I found I had no energy (and perhaps no emotion) to do that anymore.
The odd thing (to me, I guess) is that so much of what we do and what we live in is bounded by fear. In some cases, fear seems to be the preferred environment created by some for reasons that I don't think I would be able to understand - at best, one could say that it creates a certain sort of "motivation", which it does - just not a very sustaining one.
But the only thing more difficult than reacting from fear is to not react from fear. It takes far more courage and a far stronger will, because one is making the conscious choice to slow down and act decidedly and decisively. It also takes the ability to push back on others - people or things - that create and thrive on this environment of fear.
It's hard - but the alternative is worse. One can only take this slight edge of panic constantly for so long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)