COME OUT OF THE DARK

Can you imagine anyone who would willingly stay a prisoner in his own surroundings?  Well, unless you are willing to explore and venture from your comfort zone, learning ceases to exist. Plato’s analogy was a little confusing until I done some further research in order to understand Plato’s concept.  Plato was considered the most creative and influential of Socrates’ disciples.  The Allegory of the Cave sums up Plato’s views in an image of ignorant humanity, trapped in the depths and not even aware of its own limited perspective.  When the rare individual leaves the limitations of the cave and, through a long, tortuous journey, he discovers a higher realm, a true reality, a mystical awareness of Goodness as the origin of everything that exists.  That person is then the best equipped to lead in society, having knowledge of what is ultimately important in life and not just a knowledge of techniques.  Plato warns that the person who emerges will frequently be misunderstood by ordinary people back in the cave who haven’t shared in outside world.  If Plato was alive today, he might replace the image of a cave with a movie theater, with the projector replacing the fire, the film replacing the shadows, the cave wall with the movie screen, playing the same movie over and over.  The important point is that the prisoners in the cave are not seeing reality, but only a shadowy representation of it.  The importance of the allegory is Plato’s belief that there are invisible truths lying under the surface of things which only the most enlightened can grasp. In the world of illusion in the cave, prisoners at first resist enlightenment, like some students resist higher education.  But those who achieve deserve to be leaders.  I really liked Plato’s statement when he said, “the education is not a process of putting knowledge into empty minds, but of making people realize what they already know.”  Expand your knowledge by looking beyond or behind barriers. 

Do You Have A Dream?

DO YOU HAVE A DREAM?

Do you have a dream? Martin Luther King, Jr. sure did.  His “I have a dream speech” is recognized as one of the best speeches ever given.  Why is it so memorable?  Well, more than 40 years ago, on August 28, 1963, he electrified America with his memorable speech, dramatically delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in front of 250,000 people.  I believe that his words proved to be the beginning for understanding the social and political turmoil of the time and gave the nation the words to express what was happening.

The key message in the speech is that all people are created equal and, although that was not the case in American during the 1950s and 1960s, King felt it must be the case for the future.  He argued passionately and powerfully.  “I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment I still have a dream.  It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.”  I believe that these words had a very powerful drive behind Mr. King. 

Even though his speech was a very strong message for white people, King’s words are mostly about peace.  When I think about the delivery of his speech, three areas come to mind: 1-King’s remarkable emotion in which he delivered his speech; 2-The site were he delivered his speech, could he have picked a better spot, I don’t think so; 3-The mood of the day, perhaps a sense of relief from slavery among black people and maybe a sense of guilt among white people.

I find it interesting that a year later King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  At age 35, King became the youngest man to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.  Do you know what he did with the prize money?  Donated all $54,123 to the civil rights movement. 

Federalist by James Madison

TO CONSTITUTE OR NOT

In the famous article written by James Madison in 1787 entitled “Federalist #10”, one of his strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution was the fact that it established a government that was capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by “special interest groups.” Although, these groups were at odds with each other, they frequently worked against the public interest, and infringed upon the rights of others.  It appears that both supporters and opponents of the plan were concerned with the political instability caused by rival groups.  Madison thought that the state governments were so easily persuaded by these special interests groups that citizens were upset with politics and were blaming the government for their problems.

Given the nature of man, special interest groups are inevitable.  As long as people hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and own different amounts of property, they will continue to fraternize with people who are most like them.  For example, the interests of landowners differ from those who own businesses.  Government must not only protect the conflicting interests of property owners, it must, at the same time, successfully regulate the conflicts that result from those who own or don’t own, property. 

To Madison, he believed there were only two ways to control the groups: one, to remove its causes and the second to control its effects.  The first is impossible.  Madison stated that there are only two ways to remove the causes of a group, destroy liberty or give every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests.  Destroying liberty was a “cure worse than the disease itself,” and the second was impracticable.  Thereby a government created by the Constitution could control the damage caused by such special interest groups.

Madison was on to something way back in the 1780s.  His understanding of how damaging special interest groups could be to a small state government was a huge concern although some officials could not see the big picture and refuted Madison’s ideas.  A large government could undertake the groups and stand up to them.  Thankfully, Madison had the forethought to realize that a new plan of government could be formed whereby these groups could be controlled.  Even in today’s government, these groups wheel a lot of power and influence.  The hard work of several good men in the 1780s led to a better way of living today, and a form of government whose basic principals still exists.   We as citizens don’t all have to believe in the same thing or practice the same way of life.  We are free to choose what we believe and what we do.  

SunTzu

FIGHTING TO WIN.

 

No one wants to lose and the same is true for Sun Tzu, a Chinese general who wrote “The Art of War”.  Tzu seems to have given winning quite some thought.   “The Art of War” is a military strategy book.  Some of the strategies contained in the book could be used in today’s military thinking and business tactics.  I think that Tzu was quick to recognize the importance of positioning in strategy.  He thought that strategy was not planning in the sense of working through a to-do list, but rather that it requires a quick response to changing conditions.  Planning works in a controlled environment, and competing plans crash, creating situations that no one planned for.  

          In Chapter 3 of Tzu’s book, he defines the source of strength as unity, not size, and the five ingredients that you need to succeed in any competitive situation.  Tzu was referring the war, but when you read the following think about success in a business or a sports game:

1.     He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.

2.     He who understands how to use both large and small forces will be victorious.

3.     He whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious.

4.     He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not will be victorious.

5.     He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious.

Any CEO or coach might want to consider pondering the above strategies.  I think that it is interesting that portions of Tzu’s writings can be applied to successful strategies today. 

One of Tzu’s verses from his book says: “If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can come out of hundreds of battles without danger.”   Knowing both sides doesn’t guarantee winning but there is no strategy guaranteeing winning.  The reason is simple.  How about dealing with the opponent who knows both sides better than you do?  Think about it.

Politics and the English Language

WHAT DID YOU SAY?

 

Well George Orwell my think differently.  In his writing of 1946 entitled “Politics and the English Language” his purpose, for the sake of argument, is politically motivated, and he was fearful that people would turn from their clear thinking and believe what politicians had to say.  With society as Orwell’s audience, we would like us to consider the connection between corrupt language and political manipulation.  We are asked to consider whether “ugly language” contributes to muddy or foolish thinking.  Orwell believes it does.  It may appear that political and economic pressures produce ugly language, which then produces foolish thinking; but then, foolish thinking produces uglier language. 

Orwell argues that political speech writing is “bad” because it renders language meaningless, muddying thought and destroying rational decision-making.  He claims that “bad writing” is stale writing.  He blames “stale imagery” for a host of writing errors.  What does he mean? What is a stale image? Well, it’s something we’ve heard before.  In fact, the more we keep hearing it, the more we realize we’ve heard it a thousand times.  We’ve heard it so many times, we don’t even think about it anymore.  That’s its special mission – to enable us not to think about it anymore.  It does the thinking for us. Orwell shapes his argument with political sayings.  Politicians don’t have to say much when using vague saying like; We can do better, America! Better than what? What will we do exactly to be “better”? I’m the candidate of Hope. Hope for what? Are we hoping for the same thing? What exactly are we hoping for?  I want to protect America.  Protect it against what? Foreign enemies?  These phrases sound familiar, they sound pretty good, but Orwell calls them stale and that doesn’t stop politicians from using them.  In fact, they use stale language like this because it’s much less likely to require us to think.  These ready and endless remarks are what fill the air as we inch towards our presidential election.  It’ll be a good challenge for us to begin to identify them, expose them-on both sides. 

Orwell wants society to succeed by suggesting that to keep ourselves from becoming part of the problem, remember these simple questions: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image will make it clearer? And is the image fresh enough to have any effect? Then remember: Could I put it more shortly?  Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

The modest proposal

When I read this article, I was horrified.  Jonathon Swift must have a sick mind if the only proposal he can come up with is selling and eating babies as delicacies.   Yes, his country may have an over population of children, but the idea of raising children in order to sell and eat them is at best – morbid. I was wondering how in the world Swift could possible think of such an idea.  What must go through the mind of a person such as Swift is unconceivable as a human being. 

            Swift’s purpose for such a suggestion is a notable one.  Over population, thievery, starvation, illness, homelessness are all horrible ways to live.   Swift’s argument is a serious one.  No one wants to live with these kinds of conditions.  But is eating people a solution?  With his hope of achieving a good life for everyone, Swift goes too far with his proposal.  I can only assume that any proposal to do away with human beings would be meet with pure opposition.  As it should be.  Having been born into this society, I can’t understand fully what it would be like to steal for food and fight to live. 

            It’s interesting that Swift has given many years of thought to this important idea.  Swift as compiled statistics that seems to make him appear knowledgeable and trustworthy.  Maybe he should have continued to assess the situation and come up with a proposal where babies don’t have to be conceived in the first place.  My crazy idea, let’s put birth control in the water supply.  This sounds as goofy as Swift’s idea.  A lot less killing though. 

            The cultural ramifications could be hardening to society by placing no value on human life.  Where would the killing stop?  Human live would be no different than that of an animal.  Swift tries really hard to persuade his reading audience that this proposal could actual work and be successful.  I have some strong doubts about its success.  Thankfully, Swift’s proposal never seen any implementation by any country.

            I think Swift’s conclusion said it all for me, “I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; and my wife past childbearing.”  I wonder if Swift’s proposal would be the same if he was looking his baby being sold, roasted, and eaten.  I would like to think that he would have a different proposal.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!