My fascination with time began, when as a young boy I had a great deal of time on my hands. I often used much of my endless supply of time sitting under an old weeping willow tree, escaping the summer sun, and dreaming of future exploits and accomplishments.
On any one occasion, I couldn’t tell you if I’d been there for minutes, hours, days, weeks, or eons. It didn’t matter. There was nowhere I had to be and nothing else I had to do. Though I still remember some of those dreams - some of which came to pass and some of which that thanks God didn’t - I mostly remember the setting and the solitude of the experience.
I learned from a museum exhibit I visited years ago in Chicago that the earliest measure of time was a Roman marble hemispherical sundial, believed to have been buried during the time of eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D. It was designed to indicate temporal hours. Temporal hours divide each period of daylight and darkness into twelve equal parts. Therefore, the length of hours vary with the seasons. Temporal hours, which were in use in Egypt in the 16th century B.C., remained in common use until the 16th century A.D. – nearly 3,200 years.
My earliest conscious measure of time was darkness. Though my friends and I often continued to congregate after dark, our games were more reserved and quiet. That may have been out of respect for the resting time of the fathers in our working-class neighborhood. Or it may have been that we measured darkness on a different scale than daylight.
As a youth I never thought of time as something separate from me. It was, however, the adults who used phrases like wasting time, spending time, and killing time that taught me that “separation.” As a youth I never wanted time to fly or stop. As a youth there was infinite time for the future, no time like the present, and the past extended only as far back as yesterday.
Albert Einstein devoted considerable energy to thinking about time. He said things like:
“Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live.”
"In this world the passage of time brings increasing order. Order is the law of nature. If time is an arrow, that arrow points to order. The future is pattern, organization, union, intensification; the past randomness, confusion, disintegration, dissipation."
Even as an old man, Einstein continued to hold the same truths about time that we all held as young people. He saw the future as an infinite store of time, the present as an observation point, and the past as time blurred. He believed that time and space are continually in the eye of the beholder, not organic consumables.
As we age, time becomes more of a commodity to us. We allocate time to various functions – work time, family time, personal time, recreation time. There is never enough time. We hang clocks on the wall and wear watches to help us keep up with the time. We are early. We are late. We are on time.
Looking back, we think of time as something we wasted or that was well spent. We wish we’d spent more time doing the things that seem important now that evidently didn’t seem as important then. And we promise ourselves that if given another chance we’ll use our time more wisely.
Use our time more wisely. Who wouldn’t want to do that? After all, there is not all that much time left; or is there?
Thomas Jefferson said that all thought is remembering, reasoning, or imagining. By connecting Jefferson’s truth with Einstein’s truth that time is in one’s mind, I’ve concluded that all the time I have is adequate for all that I wish to accomplish.
By intentionally using my memory as a reliable source of lessons learned, my reason as a pragmatic view of that which truly is accomplishable, and by imagining a future full of exploits and accomplishments, I return to the willow tree where time is in endless supply, shade is abundant, and anything is possible. This time, however, I bring with me the wealth of scores yesterdays to add clarity and dimension to my dreamings of tomorrows.
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Identifying Ignorance
After observing two young men clowning with the cashier at the drive-thru window of a fast food restaurant, I said to her, “Those boys must have been driving you crazy!"
She replied, “No sir, those boys come by here and act like that all the time. They're just funning. I learned a long time ago, if it weren't for some people's ignorance they wouldn't have no fun at all!"
That episode at the drive-thru provoked me to think about ignorance and its role in success and failure. Since that encounter, I’ve identified several types of ignorances that I've run into over the years:
Arrogant Ignorance. Acting mean spirited to cover up a lack of knowledge on a subject. Or assuming that the knowledge one has is more valuable than the knowledge one could acquire. In the business world these are usually successful old white guys.
Educated Ignorance. Thinking that the little letters after one's name on a business card confer expertise in all subjects. Lawyers, doctors, CPAs, insurance salepeople, etc.
Historical Ignorance. Believing there is “nothing new under the sun” and that yesterday’s knowledge is sufficient for today. The only time these people ever learn anything new is from public radio while on the way home from work.
Intentional Ignorance. Deliberately pleading ignorance to eliminate the possibility of increasing one's workload or responsibilities. Many clerical workers fit this bill.
Blissful Ignorance. Lacking even the slightest interest in a subject. Or being totally unaware that a subject exists. It can't be important if these people don't know about it.
Genetic Ignorance. Being mentally incapable of learning anything about a given subject. You can't teach a pig to sing. Trying will only irritate the pig.
Pooled Ignorance. Forming teams or committees to determine, with little or no preparation, to decide the direction of a project. Business, church, or a bunch of drunks.
Please send me any ignorances you've encountered.
She replied, “No sir, those boys come by here and act like that all the time. They're just funning. I learned a long time ago, if it weren't for some people's ignorance they wouldn't have no fun at all!"
That episode at the drive-thru provoked me to think about ignorance and its role in success and failure. Since that encounter, I’ve identified several types of ignorances that I've run into over the years:
Arrogant Ignorance. Acting mean spirited to cover up a lack of knowledge on a subject. Or assuming that the knowledge one has is more valuable than the knowledge one could acquire. In the business world these are usually successful old white guys.
Educated Ignorance. Thinking that the little letters after one's name on a business card confer expertise in all subjects. Lawyers, doctors, CPAs, insurance salepeople, etc.
Historical Ignorance. Believing there is “nothing new under the sun” and that yesterday’s knowledge is sufficient for today. The only time these people ever learn anything new is from public radio while on the way home from work.
Intentional Ignorance. Deliberately pleading ignorance to eliminate the possibility of increasing one's workload or responsibilities. Many clerical workers fit this bill.
Blissful Ignorance. Lacking even the slightest interest in a subject. Or being totally unaware that a subject exists. It can't be important if these people don't know about it.
Genetic Ignorance. Being mentally incapable of learning anything about a given subject. You can't teach a pig to sing. Trying will only irritate the pig.
Pooled Ignorance. Forming teams or committees to determine, with little or no preparation, to decide the direction of a project. Business, church, or a bunch of drunks.
Please send me any ignorances you've encountered.
Saturday, December 2, 2006
Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself
This is the third and final book in a series of self-help tomes written by the Father of Artificial Intelligence, Larry Womack. The other books are The Grass is Always Browner and Never Take Advice Lying Down.
This book, Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself, is the basis of a new three-day seminar conducted by Womack in appropriate settings throughout the nation. Look for one near you.
Here is a brief synopsis of the book, Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself.
Chapter One: Success May be Closer Than It Appears in the Mirror
Womack says, “Learn why what you’re doing right now may be all the success you ever have. Consider when people say you are stupid that they may be right. Sometimes learning to live in mediocrity is a good thing.” He suggests that if you feel you need a motivational speaker to get you going, it might be wiser to just find something not as taxing to do. “Your glass may always be half-empty, “ says Womack. “But on the bright side, many people don’t even have a glass.”
The information in this chapter will put you well on your way to accepting your own inadequacies and developing a plan to maximize them.
Chapter Two: Learn from Your Ignorance
Womack demonstrates how you can save time and energy by relying on your own ignorance and the ignorance of others to develop your opinions. He suggests using the Internet as a primary source of truth and opinion. That way no one can challenge what you say because there is no evidence whether the information is true or not. Believe only what you want to and only seek knowledge from unusual sources. It is a lot easier to rely on the ignorance of others than it is to go to all that trouble on your own. Womack says, “Only read books that support your narrow position on an issue and you won’t ever become confused. And, remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.”
This chapter is replete with shortcuts to knowing-it-all without a great deal of effort.
Chapter Three: The Vegetable Test
Womack’s engaging “Which Vegetable Are You Test?” will help you become the type of vegetable you’ve always wanted to be. “Some people want to be a cucumber. Others would prefer to be a potato. No one ever picks a turnip or a rutabaga. Radishes and scallions are low on the list. Tomatoes (technically a fruit) and yams rank high,” says Womack. “Everybody wants to be a vegetable but just which one is hard to decide.”
This test gets the job done, in record time. You start by defining which vegetable best represents who you are today and then go through the exhaustive list of vegetables Womack has supplied and then pick the top five vegetables you think you’d want to be most like. Narrow it to three and then from the three pick the one that you’d most like to become; then develop a plan of action.”
This maybe the most useful and insightful chapter in the book.
Chapter Four: None of Us is as Dumb as All of Us
This chapter demonstrates the strengths and weakness of teamwork. Womack opines that when individuals form teams almost anything is possible. He concludes that most meetings are based on the concept of “pooled ignorance.” Leaders often assume that the more minds that are at the table equates to higher intellectual acuity and better decisions. That’s why leaders often bring in people from across the organization and from outside to participate in their planning and strategy sessions. “You never know where a better idea might come from.” Womack suggests. “It is important to note that using a team approach also spreads the responsibility for whatever failures that might come from the groupthink; thus absolving leadership from any personal accountability.
Chapter Five: Finding Someone to Blame
This chapter exposits the concept of finding others to blame for bad ideas and the poor execution of them. “It’s not always your fault no matter how guilty you might feel. There’s always someone else you can blame for failures, if you just look hard enough and in the right places,” says Womack. He suggests that even those who attempt to hold you accountable may be at fault themselves. Maybe their expectations were too high; they overestimated your ability, or underestimated the difficulty of the task. Or maybe they just don’t understand.
Sometimes, he says. The universe is a good scapegoat. Say, it was God’s will or everything happens for a reason, it was just not meant to be, or it could have been worse and almost no one will blame you.
This chapter was the genesis for the title, Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself. “That,” says Womack, “can be a difficult and daunting task."
Chapter Six: Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself
The final chapter explains that everyone cannot become whomever they want to be because someone else is probably already that person. Turning around and taking a look at one’s self, no matter how difficult that may be, is the only answer.
A highlight of the chapter is the Entrepreneurial Test. Womack recommends getting a blank sheet of paper and a pen. If you can’t think of anything to write down, forget becoming an entrepreneur and get a job.
The chapter is all about taking stock. In another exercise, Womack recommends folding a piece of paper down the middle and listing on one side of the sheet all your attributes, talents, and expertise. After completing that side, turn the paper over an list all your weaknesses, obsessions, failures, bad attitudes, neuroses, and the mistakes you’ve made over the years; using the backside of the paper, if necessary.
He believes this exercise gives one the true picture of his or her potential and can serve as a wake up call for lowering one’s expectations of success.
Womack reminds us that when you feel that you have reached the bottom, it’s important to look down. You may not be there yet.
The book ends on the uplifting note that there is always a light at the end of the tunnel. Womack does, however, point out that in some cases that light is an oncoming train.
Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself is soul food for thought.
This book, Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself, is the basis of a new three-day seminar conducted by Womack in appropriate settings throughout the nation. Look for one near you.
Here is a brief synopsis of the book, Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself.
Chapter One: Success May be Closer Than It Appears in the Mirror
Womack says, “Learn why what you’re doing right now may be all the success you ever have. Consider when people say you are stupid that they may be right. Sometimes learning to live in mediocrity is a good thing.” He suggests that if you feel you need a motivational speaker to get you going, it might be wiser to just find something not as taxing to do. “Your glass may always be half-empty, “ says Womack. “But on the bright side, many people don’t even have a glass.”
The information in this chapter will put you well on your way to accepting your own inadequacies and developing a plan to maximize them.
Chapter Two: Learn from Your Ignorance
Womack demonstrates how you can save time and energy by relying on your own ignorance and the ignorance of others to develop your opinions. He suggests using the Internet as a primary source of truth and opinion. That way no one can challenge what you say because there is no evidence whether the information is true or not. Believe only what you want to and only seek knowledge from unusual sources. It is a lot easier to rely on the ignorance of others than it is to go to all that trouble on your own. Womack says, “Only read books that support your narrow position on an issue and you won’t ever become confused. And, remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.”
This chapter is replete with shortcuts to knowing-it-all without a great deal of effort.
Chapter Three: The Vegetable Test
Womack’s engaging “Which Vegetable Are You Test?” will help you become the type of vegetable you’ve always wanted to be. “Some people want to be a cucumber. Others would prefer to be a potato. No one ever picks a turnip or a rutabaga. Radishes and scallions are low on the list. Tomatoes (technically a fruit) and yams rank high,” says Womack. “Everybody wants to be a vegetable but just which one is hard to decide.”
This test gets the job done, in record time. You start by defining which vegetable best represents who you are today and then go through the exhaustive list of vegetables Womack has supplied and then pick the top five vegetables you think you’d want to be most like. Narrow it to three and then from the three pick the one that you’d most like to become; then develop a plan of action.”
This maybe the most useful and insightful chapter in the book.
Chapter Four: None of Us is as Dumb as All of Us
This chapter demonstrates the strengths and weakness of teamwork. Womack opines that when individuals form teams almost anything is possible. He concludes that most meetings are based on the concept of “pooled ignorance.” Leaders often assume that the more minds that are at the table equates to higher intellectual acuity and better decisions. That’s why leaders often bring in people from across the organization and from outside to participate in their planning and strategy sessions. “You never know where a better idea might come from.” Womack suggests. “It is important to note that using a team approach also spreads the responsibility for whatever failures that might come from the groupthink; thus absolving leadership from any personal accountability.
Chapter Five: Finding Someone to Blame
This chapter exposits the concept of finding others to blame for bad ideas and the poor execution of them. “It’s not always your fault no matter how guilty you might feel. There’s always someone else you can blame for failures, if you just look hard enough and in the right places,” says Womack. He suggests that even those who attempt to hold you accountable may be at fault themselves. Maybe their expectations were too high; they overestimated your ability, or underestimated the difficulty of the task. Or maybe they just don’t understand.
Sometimes, he says. The universe is a good scapegoat. Say, it was God’s will or everything happens for a reason, it was just not meant to be, or it could have been worse and almost no one will blame you.
This chapter was the genesis for the title, Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself. “That,” says Womack, “can be a difficult and daunting task."
Chapter Six: Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself
The final chapter explains that everyone cannot become whomever they want to be because someone else is probably already that person. Turning around and taking a look at one’s self, no matter how difficult that may be, is the only answer.
A highlight of the chapter is the Entrepreneurial Test. Womack recommends getting a blank sheet of paper and a pen. If you can’t think of anything to write down, forget becoming an entrepreneur and get a job.
The chapter is all about taking stock. In another exercise, Womack recommends folding a piece of paper down the middle and listing on one side of the sheet all your attributes, talents, and expertise. After completing that side, turn the paper over an list all your weaknesses, obsessions, failures, bad attitudes, neuroses, and the mistakes you’ve made over the years; using the backside of the paper, if necessary.
He believes this exercise gives one the true picture of his or her potential and can serve as a wake up call for lowering one’s expectations of success.
Womack reminds us that when you feel that you have reached the bottom, it’s important to look down. You may not be there yet.
The book ends on the uplifting note that there is always a light at the end of the tunnel. Womack does, however, point out that in some cases that light is an oncoming train.
Turn Around and Take a Look at Yourself is soul food for thought.
Monday, November 27, 2006
No Other Gods Before Me
I’m thinking that the ancient Greeks had it right. There is more than one god or, at the very least, more than one manifestation of the same god.
Humankind, from every corner of the earth, celebrates the goodness and cowers at the condemnation they experience when conversing with their god.
The rewards and consequences received from their moral transactions vary from the type of god they worship. That which is considered moral also varies from culture to culture.
The vagaries of god’s judgment, moral actions, rewards, punishments, etc. also vary from sect to sect within religious disciplines. Within Christianity, for example, there are sects believing that instrumental music played in a house of worship goes against god’s law. While there are other sects that build mighty pipe organs to glorify their god.
Since the death of Jesus Christ, many different Christian sects have been formed because of theological, political, moral, personal and proprietary differences. Each believing that the difference in opinion was sufficient to establish a new Christian order or that the opposing opinion was sufficiently heretical to excommunicate those who held it.
As an observer, it is difficult to see the god prayed to by evangelical Christians to be the same as the god prayed to by United Methodist; or to interpret the beliefs and practices of Primitive Baptist to be similar to those of Roman Catholics or Episcopalians.
The written authority of each of these faiths comes from the Holy Bible, or should that be a holy bible: since the god’s written word has been interpreted different ways through differing translations. Different sects subscribe to different translations.
All Christian faiths hold that certain sins, the biblical term for immoral behaviors, are particularly offensive to both humankind and god – murder and stealing. Other sins like adultery, coveting, blasphemy, idolatry, and lying are often subject to denominational or individual interpretation. There is even controversy among religionist on the translation of the Commandment “Thou shall not kill. Some say the correct translation is “not murder.” Others take a broader view “not kill.”
Some Christians hold that god did not ordain and Jesus would not condone female priest, ministers, or preachers. Other denominations fill pulpits, these days, mostly with women.
Who is right and who is wrong? It is impossible for any thinking person to conclude the rightness or wrongness of the variety of views and beliefs held by the various god believers; though some beliefs and practices do seem more outrageous than others.
The current debate among Christians is concerned with homosexuality. Most of the homosexuals I know are very nice people, though I would not want to have sex with any of them, much less marry one.
Should homosexuals be allowed to become ministers? (I haven’t heard any argument about homosexuals becoming choir directors, organist or cantors.) Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?
The debate rages. Even the government is in the fray. Should partners of homosexuals be eligible for healthcare through places of employment? What is the difference between civil union and marriage? Should homosexuals have their own god or is it OK from them to worship mine?
One thing for sure, this homosexual thing is dividing Christian believers like no other issue in my lifetime including women clergy, abortion, and equal rights for black people.
United Methodist are disengaging from other United Methodist over homosexuality; Southern Baptist are quitting the Convention; Episcopalians, Lutheran, and Presbyterians are forming anti-gay congregations; and Roman Catholics are trying their best to hate the sin and love the sinner. Some say what goes on in another persons bedroom is their business. Others say god can see in there and he doesn’t like what he sees.
In the Middle Eastern religions, where the men rule and women wear veils, homosexuality can result in dismemberment or death; no vagary there.
There is no doubt that homosexuality will continue to cause schism in Christian institutions, particularly those on the North American continent. In my opinion that can be a good thing.
I looked; ecumenical is not mentioned in the Bible. And, if Christian can have different interpretations of sin, why do they all have to think they worship the same god? Why do they waste their time trying to convince other Christians on the rightness or wrongness of a particular position or scriptural interpretation?
If you are a Christian and your god is against homosexuality, then get together with likeminded Christians and shout “Halleluiah!”
If you’re a Christian and your god interprets brotherly love in a more inclusive way, get together and love one another, according to the Scriptures as you know them.
The Greeks had a god for most everything. They may have had the right idea.
Humankind, from every corner of the earth, celebrates the goodness and cowers at the condemnation they experience when conversing with their god.
The rewards and consequences received from their moral transactions vary from the type of god they worship. That which is considered moral also varies from culture to culture.
The vagaries of god’s judgment, moral actions, rewards, punishments, etc. also vary from sect to sect within religious disciplines. Within Christianity, for example, there are sects believing that instrumental music played in a house of worship goes against god’s law. While there are other sects that build mighty pipe organs to glorify their god.
Since the death of Jesus Christ, many different Christian sects have been formed because of theological, political, moral, personal and proprietary differences. Each believing that the difference in opinion was sufficient to establish a new Christian order or that the opposing opinion was sufficiently heretical to excommunicate those who held it.
As an observer, it is difficult to see the god prayed to by evangelical Christians to be the same as the god prayed to by United Methodist; or to interpret the beliefs and practices of Primitive Baptist to be similar to those of Roman Catholics or Episcopalians.
The written authority of each of these faiths comes from the Holy Bible, or should that be a holy bible: since the god’s written word has been interpreted different ways through differing translations. Different sects subscribe to different translations.
All Christian faiths hold that certain sins, the biblical term for immoral behaviors, are particularly offensive to both humankind and god – murder and stealing. Other sins like adultery, coveting, blasphemy, idolatry, and lying are often subject to denominational or individual interpretation. There is even controversy among religionist on the translation of the Commandment “Thou shall not kill. Some say the correct translation is “not murder.” Others take a broader view “not kill.”
Some Christians hold that god did not ordain and Jesus would not condone female priest, ministers, or preachers. Other denominations fill pulpits, these days, mostly with women.
Who is right and who is wrong? It is impossible for any thinking person to conclude the rightness or wrongness of the variety of views and beliefs held by the various god believers; though some beliefs and practices do seem more outrageous than others.
The current debate among Christians is concerned with homosexuality. Most of the homosexuals I know are very nice people, though I would not want to have sex with any of them, much less marry one.
Should homosexuals be allowed to become ministers? (I haven’t heard any argument about homosexuals becoming choir directors, organist or cantors.) Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?
The debate rages. Even the government is in the fray. Should partners of homosexuals be eligible for healthcare through places of employment? What is the difference between civil union and marriage? Should homosexuals have their own god or is it OK from them to worship mine?
One thing for sure, this homosexual thing is dividing Christian believers like no other issue in my lifetime including women clergy, abortion, and equal rights for black people.
United Methodist are disengaging from other United Methodist over homosexuality; Southern Baptist are quitting the Convention; Episcopalians, Lutheran, and Presbyterians are forming anti-gay congregations; and Roman Catholics are trying their best to hate the sin and love the sinner. Some say what goes on in another persons bedroom is their business. Others say god can see in there and he doesn’t like what he sees.
In the Middle Eastern religions, where the men rule and women wear veils, homosexuality can result in dismemberment or death; no vagary there.
There is no doubt that homosexuality will continue to cause schism in Christian institutions, particularly those on the North American continent. In my opinion that can be a good thing.
I looked; ecumenical is not mentioned in the Bible. And, if Christian can have different interpretations of sin, why do they all have to think they worship the same god? Why do they waste their time trying to convince other Christians on the rightness or wrongness of a particular position or scriptural interpretation?
If you are a Christian and your god is against homosexuality, then get together with likeminded Christians and shout “Halleluiah!”
If you’re a Christian and your god interprets brotherly love in a more inclusive way, get together and love one another, according to the Scriptures as you know them.
The Greeks had a god for most everything. They may have had the right idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)