Monday, May 14th, 2012

Between Us and Total Chaos

Lord of the Flies:  Sir William Golding’s epic novel of the relationship between human nature and society, and the breakdown that occurs when the safeguards that society creates to  protect itself start to crumble.

I first read the book in junior high school, as the waves created by 1960s American social change and protest began to crash into my consciousness. I came of age in a time when “law and order” bumped into personal freedom, and what would seem, at first glance – maybe – to be two very complementary concepts clashed as, at their extremes, one became an oversimplified icon of police-state thinking and the other became a caricature of lack of accountability and seriousness.

And the book resonated. Where was the middle ground? The sweet spot between the glue that held society together and the anarchy of doing whatever you wanted – more important, what would happen if the bonds loosened? What would I do? What would you do?

The real question – as I see it – relates to absolutes – primal imprints – do we need laws or does human nature automatically take over and self-correct, so that we stay centered and behave in a manner that separates us from our nonhuman neighbors. Do we become the very monsters we fear or do we transcend?

If you haven’t read the book, I highly recommend it and will leave you with this thought quoted from the manuscript – “Maybe there is a beast….maybe it’s only us.”

Maybe it’s only us – clearly there is enough proof in the past century and this one too, to suggest that way too often it is us – and sometimes us with laws to justify our actions…maybe the worst combination of law and order and anarchy – in fact, since the dawn of time such has been the case.

On a smaller scale, it’s evident in personal and business relationships when self takes precedence and “the end justifies the means” becomes the normative operating philosophy.

So again – the question is, what really stands between us and total chaos? Clearly laws alone don’t cut it – and in fact, can be perverted for evil as well.

Listen:

“Laws control the lesser man.  Right conduct controls the greater one.”  Chinese Proverb

And there you have it – right conduct – an absolute – a primal imprint – a filter by which to judge what we do, what we support, what we champion.

We need laws – for sure – but as we know, laws are easy to break or ignore or worse, enact for the wrong reasons.

The book ends – “I should have thought that a pack of British boys…would have been able to put up a better show than that.”

What kind of show will we put on?

What do you think?

Posted by David on 05/14 at 12:50 PM
  • Matt -- good point -- much has been written about those who follow a "higher being" and in the name of that deity kill those who dont accept it. Way too many examples -- past and present -- to mention.
    Read more >
    Posted by david sable on 2012-05-15 18:08:13
  • I have to call shenanigans on the notion that man must look to a higher being for guidance with regard to 'right conduct'. One doesn't need a deity to contemplate philosophical issues (such as morality). . In relation to Goldings tale, the kids had been taught about 'right conduct' but hadnt really contemplated it, hence when there was no ...
    Read more >
    Posted by Matt on 2012-05-15 17:46:37
  • Remember in the movie, “Goodfellas”, the day the FBI zoomed down on Ray Liotta’s character, Henry Hill? That day, Hill was on top of his game. He had all of everything in his pocket; all the plates were spinning. He was making a feast for his buddies with multiple pots of sauce, pasta, meatballs; you name it, on ...
    Read more >
    Posted by joette spinelli on 2012-05-15 14:36:23
Monday, May 7th, 2012

Go for the GOLD

Go for the GOLD!

A phrase that I believe resonates across most if not all modern cultures and languages, and ultimately translates into doing your best – going the extra mile – pushing yourself to the limit.

Olympic athletes (for the most part) are great examples of this philosophy. They train – long and hard and often lonely hours – for that one moment when they can compete against others who have done the same. Listen to the best of them speak – even if they win nothing, the experience, the opportunity, the sheer exhilaration of being there – makes them winners. And for long years after, they know that just “Going for the Gold” was in and of itself a major achievement and not shared by many.

And by the way, the growing number of people – all over the world – who participate in marathons and triathlons of all sorts and lengths is testimony to this point. Ask the average runner why they participate, why they train….

And there are as many examples from the non-sports world as well.  The kind of people we call saints and heroes fit this mold as do those who quietly, every day, overcome major obstacles and barriers that others would find insurmountable.

Personally, I have a need for heroes. I need the inspiration of those who “Go for the Gold” by giving it their all – selflessly, tirelessly – day in and day out – and who do so because they know no other way. To do less would be to give in, to give up. So to all my heroes…thank you.

Yet, truthfully – some have taken the meaning in another direction – win at all costs. Go for the Gold. Grab that ring or medal and do whatever you want as opposed to whatever you can. The ends justify the means and when you have the gold, who will remember how you did it – or maybe even, who will ever find out how you did it.

Sadly – there are no lack of examples to prove this point. Athletes who dope or otherwise cheat to make their accomplishments bigger than they would be if they competed clean; financial types who have no real business acumen other than stealing and swindling; people who lie or deliberately hurt others to stay ahead of the game; and those who manipulate situations with no care of the consequences to others so long as they win…whatever “win” means to them.

Dan Gable was an Olympic athlete. A gold medal winner. He was a wrestler with one of the best records ever recorded in the sport, and then became a coach and motivational speaker. He is famous for his standards of conduct and behavior.

Listen:

“Gold medals aren’t really made of gold. They’re made of sweat, determination, and a hard-to-find alloy called guts.”
Dan Gable

There are no shortcuts to the real thing. There are no simple pathways, Gold Medals for Dummies books or shots or pills that can make you a real, true hero – although they might get you that moment of fleeting and false glory on the podium.

What there is defies the dopers and slackers – it eludes them – because they don’t really have the talent.  What they have is the greed for gold and not the real desire to be a winner – nor, more importantly, the true heart to be a hero.

Forgive me for adding another quote but I am passionate about this topic and passionate about the next source.

Listen to another:

“The battles that count aren’t the ones for gold medals. The struggles within yourself – the invisible, inevitable battles inside all of us – that’s where it’s at.”
Jesse Owens

Ray Rubicam, the founder of Young and Rubicam, called this Resist the Usual. Going for the gold medal is easy – it’s the usual.  Going for the Gold isn’t.

It’s my heroes who help me – inspire me – people like Danny and Corey to name just two (no last names – these are my heroes – feel free to share yours). Find a hero. Resist The Usual and Go for the Gold and who knows – you might even win a medal along the way, not to mention find or even make a hero.

What do you think?

 

 

Posted by David on 05/07 at 05:49 PM
Monday, April 30th, 2012

Making Money from Scoops

Here is an ethical question.

Can a news source make money from its scoops – beyond the obvious – and will I keep reading the source if they continue to scoop?

The question is raised by Felix Salmon, the finance blogger on Reuters – somewhat facetiously I thought…until I thought about it and read the comments posted around his own posting.

Read on:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/24/could-the-nyt-make-money-from-its-scoops/

Bottom line – companies pay for access to information. In today’s world they pay for access to ever more relevant and ever more instant sources. If I hired a research company to unearth that same information few would argue that I don’t have the right to benefit from it. But a news source? A storied institution like the New York Times? Don’t they have a compact with the public? Don’t all credible news institutions have that same sense of accountability?

Yet already I can pay the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and others to get digital access to their news and thus get it faster and before the print edition is even composed. And, if I go back in time – isn’t buying a daily subscription the same thing? I get it early in the morning – read it with my coffee and muffin and get a jump on the guy who picks it up on the way in. In fact I remember stories of people who would wait outside the printing plants to get the first copy of a given newspaper in the old days.

So – it would seem, at first glance, that in our digital world there is no additional ethical or moral issue – like most things it’s just an evolution and adaptation of understood and accepted behavior.

Or is it? HMMMMMMM….

Read the posts and tell me what you think.

My going in view was much the same as one of the contributors – a trusted news source has to be held to a different standard than a scandal rag – and I might be tempted to add that in a world where credibility, relevance and trust are becoming blurred subjects, I might feel even more strongly about that point and hope that they hew to a more rigorous interpretation of their charter.

In fact I might argue that if they fall prey to the temptation it actually lowers their future competitive advantage.

Last point – notice all the anonymity in the postings – my position on that has never changed – unless you are in a country where you fear for your life the opportunity to misuse hiding behind a curtain is too tempting for too many…and adds to the danger of having no credible sources left for benchmarking information and, yes, even behavior.

Listen:

“Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.”
Samuel Johnson

I think this about sums it up. Interestingly, many weighed in on this, from the Greek and Roman philosophers to Benjamin Franklin to many of today’s most famous pundits.

Not a problem created by our age but one still very relevant and very much on people’s minds.

What do you think?

Posted by David on 04/30 at 06:43 PM
  • It is interesting how many sites are now making the move from freeview into pay for content models - most recently was the Times UK. I guess most people expect that the publications online should be free, whilst paper copies should not - however a business is a business and any profit made off the back of covering operating costs ...
    Read more >
    Posted by Suzanne Donovan on 2012-05-07 04:36:56