Item #64: The Zen Master & The Boy

Ever heard the story about the boy and the Zen master?

“There's a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse... and everybody in the village says, "how wonderful. The boy got a horse" And the Zen master says, "we'll see." Two years later, the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, "How terrible." And the Zen master says, "We'll see." Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight... except the boy can't cause his legs are all messed up. And everybody in the village says, "How wonderful."…. And again the Zen master says, "We'll see."”

Full disclosure that parable is sourced from the movie Charlie Wilson’s War.

Item # 63: Advocating for Naïveté.

Recently I discovered I might be naïve.

I had asked a group of 20-somethings to introduce themselves by sharing a story about something which they were proud of and which they believed to be unique to them personally. One told of how he had climbed Everest, another about having lived in 17 different cities, another of having recorded an original song he wrote and yet another who told us of his near-death encounter with a bear in a forest. I listened to these stories, wide-eyed and attentive, interested and enthralled. Such amazing stories. Or so I thought.

It turned out that one of the stories was simply not true. It was shared in jest, and was supposed to be so obviously absurd that I would recognize this, and chuckle. I did not.

Because I am naïve.

I realized it at that moment. See, when someone tells me a story, proposes an idea, suggests an opinion, I take what they are saying to be a sincere truth. I accept any thought, idea or opinion to be worthy of my serious attention and my open-minded consideration. To be clear, I may (and often do) disagree with what is being stated; I may question or critique what I am hearing, but I trust that whatever is being stated, is being stated with authenticity, with honest intention.

Some time ago I recognized that I was an Idealist. I even added it to my Twitter profile: “Located at: A Land of Ideals & Toronto.” While others often tossed the ‘idealist’ moniker in my direction in a disparaging way, I came to realize that others labeled me ‘idealist’ due to my interminable solution seeking. Rarely accepting ‘no’ as an answer, always believing there was a way, those qualities led colleagues (and boyfriends) to send barbs of ‘be realistic!’ in my direction, and to shake in frustration at the sky-high ambitions and expectations I just couldn’t release. Even if others could not, I came to terms with my Idealism.

But naïve, well, this represented a new discovery.

na·ive 

• having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
• having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous.
• having or marked by a simple, unaffectedly direct style reflecting little or no formal training or technique.
• simple, unaffected, unsuspecting, artless, guileless, candid, open, plain.

The initial investigation did not look promising. I certainly did not want to be “unsophisticated”, “artless” or “plain”.

But upon deeper investigation, in stripping away the negative, emotionally loaded terms, I noticed others: “unaffected”; “candid”; “open”; “having a lack of judgment”; “absence of artificiality”. Upon deeper investigation I saw associations I could get behind, things I would like to be.

Then I came across a quote from Friedrich Schiller:

Every true genius is bound to be naïve.

Poet, Philosopher-Partner to Goethe and the second most influential playwright in Europe, Schiller seemed to have some thoughts on being naïve. Schiller wrote about how the sacrifice for conceptual ideals is about the drive for self-preservation and ultimately human freedom.

And then I came across another quote by Pulitzer Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Speechwriter for Franklin D. Roosevelt and one-time screenwriter for Alfred Hitchcock, Robert E. Sherwood:

To be able to write a play a man must be sensitive, imaginative, naïve, gullible, passionate; he must be something of an imbecile, something of a poet, something of a liar, something of a damn fool.

So...where am I going with this? Where do I mean to end up? I bring this full circle in order to Advocate for Naïveté. These men quoted above were Advocates for Naïveté. In advocating for naïveté, I think I conclude that it is a good thing to be open, candid, to have a lack of judgment…to be naïve.

And on that note, I have to update my Twitter profile. Located At: “A Land of Ideals. Populated by the Perpetually Naïve.”

Item #62: On This Family Day

On this Family Day, may we consider collectively a wider definition for the term we hold dear: “family”. While many loving families are gathered today, cradling infants, playing cars on the floor, skiing, skating, or kicking a ball around on a field, cuddled up with a movie, or sharing a meal, this isn’t the reality for all.

Just this last week, a 12-year-old child was found in California, naked and eating out of trash cans. Her mother apparently kept her naked so she wouldn’t run away; I’m not sure why she kept her hungry as well.

This child is spending this family day in protective services.

As are the approximately 67,000 children in Canadian protective care services*.

Family Day is an important day. A day that celebrates the importance of family. A day that carves out the time and space to appreciate and enjoy one another. A day to talk, to play, to laugh, to cuddle. An important day to consider how concerned, watchful and protective we are of our family members. Let no one harm them, hurt them; let no injury come to them. An important day perhaps to wonder where “family” was for that little girl in California. Or, for the 67,000 children living in care here in Canada.

But in addition and more importantly, an important day to remember that the family we are each responsible to is broader than our immediate DNA class, and extends to the class of all our fellow humans. To remember that the family we are each responsible to goes beyond those humans living under the one same roof, to those living under the one same sky. On this family day, remember the family we are all members of, the family of each other, and remember we all have a responsibility. To be a watchful eye. To care. For that 12 year old living in protective services in California today. For the 67,000 children living in Canadian protective services today. For each other.

* 2007 figure via The Canadian Child Welfare Portal: http://www.cecw-cepb.ca/faqs

Item #61: Counter-Point. Humanity.

I write this in the name of The Counter-Point.

Years ago, a wise colleague alerted me to the dynamic of what she called “Point. Counter-Point.” The premise is that when there is extensive talk, adherence, or belief in ‘A Point’, there can be found an existing ‘Counter-Point’.

Of late, my information sources have been bombarded with ‘The Point’ side of the equation. These last few weeks in particular two papers championing ‘The Point’ caught my eye. First was The Future of Work 2020 issued by The Institute for the Future whereby 4 of their 6 identified drivers of change are technology-related: smart machines, a computational world, new media ecology, superstructed organizations powered by social technologies.

And the second was the popular Next 5 in 5 released by IBM Corporation. The headline captures it: “Science fiction becomes reality. Worlds collide. The future is ‘now’...or within five years, at least.” In this report, “IBM predicts that over the next five years technology innovations will change the way we work, live and play”.

Here is The Point, loud and clear.

‘The Point’ is: Technology. ‘The Point’ is that Technology is singularly the biggest force shaping our worlds, changing our days, altering our minds and bodies even.

I am pro-technology. Very. But I want to talk about The Counter-Point.

In the 1960s there was a counterculture movement, a lifestyle of peace, love and drugs, blossoming in California and co-existing with the birth of Silicon Valley. According to author Theodore Roszak in his book The Making of a Counter Culture, this movement was largely fueled by the divergent opinions of the Technophiles and the Reversionaries. The technophiles in general were driving powerful technological growth and development while the Reversionaries were dreaming of the days of the farm and the village. That’s an over-simplification but generally accurate for illustration purposes.

Low and behold, look at where we are today.

In one corner we have The Point: Technology

In 1992, technophile Vernor Vinge, Professor of Mathematics, Computer Scientist and Science Fiction Writer wrote The Technological Singularity, and originated the term “The Singularity”. His claim: “Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.” There are many invested in the Singularity. If it interests you, check out The Singularity Institute in California.

In 2011, The Institute for the Future released its technology-centric The Future of Work 2020 and IBM released its technology-centric The Next 5 in 5. Again, important reports you can access above.

The other corner is open. Perhaps awaiting The Counter-Point: Humanity

I have to go back a little further to find those involved in The Counter-Point conversation.

In 1992, Neil Postman wrote Technopoly. In it he defined technopoly as “a society in which technology is deified”. ”Technology in a time of Technopoly actively eliminates all other ‘thought-worlds’. Thus, it reduces human life to finding meaning in machines and technique.”

And then there is the man who most stimulates my own personal perspective on ‘The Counter-Point’: Mark Slouka. Slouka characterizes high tech as "an attack on reality as human beings have always known it." Most eloquently perhaps in his essay Dehumanized: When math and science rule the school. (Sept 2009), Slouka challenges “the victory of whatever can be quantified over everything that can’t.” Noting that: “in a horizontal world of “information” readily convertible to product, the verticality of wisdom has no place.”

And here Slouka lays the foundation for The Counter-Point: Humanity.

“The humanities, done right, teach us, incrementally, endlessly, not what to do but how to be.” “… they complicate our vision, pull our most cherished notions out by the roots, flay our pieties. Because they grow uncertainty. Because they expand the reach of our understanding (and therefore our compassion), even as they force us to draw and redraw the borders of tolerance.”

The Year is 2012. The ground is ripe for a new emergent counterculture. A Counter Point. One that encourages lively discussion and celebration of the things that make us human, the things that shape our humanity.

Things like thinking, feeling and relating. Things like art, aesthetics, poetry, philosophy, literature, film, and music. The things that make us touchable and soft as humans and the things that make our world beautiful and loving.

While these are just words on a page right now, I hope with focus and attention, they will grow into an idea.

Point: Technology. Counter-Point: Humanity.