One nice thing about getting older (one of the few things :-)) is that I have much less interest in things that don't matter that much. So, I don't spend a lot of time chasing things that burn time and money. But I do spend time and money on things that matter to me. More simplification and focus is calming.
What matters to me now? In no specfic order I'd say music, making a difference through my career, family/friend relationships, great ideas, health, financial independence, sex, mental clarity, spiritual search, seeing more of the world.
Maybe that's about it. Activities that enhance those things pretty much take up my time these days. Now that I wrote the list, it seems longer than I expected, cause it doesn't seem like I do as many different things as I did in the past. But, that's probably enough as I seem to stay busy most of the time with just doing the next thing.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Connecting the Dots
Sometimes we may wonder why we don't do a better job of seeing around corners. Why can some of us do it better than others. Most of us can detect obvious or not so obvious trends. But how many of us can connect the dots in new ways. There are probably an infinite number of ways to connect the dots for any given arena, context or media, not to mention the meta-world. I think we limit ourselves in two ways.
First, we notice the way things really are. I believe this is a pre-requisite to connecting future dots. We have too many distractions that give us lots of noise around what's really there.
Second, we rely too much on the "experts" to tell us what the future will be. Here again, too much distraction the same kind but different effect blinds us to the obvious.
Third, some particular aspect of the current opportunity is forcing us into a particular way of thinking of the approach to take. So, we are blind to an approach that might be simpler and yield more benefit.
First, we notice the way things really are. I believe this is a pre-requisite to connecting future dots. We have too many distractions that give us lots of noise around what's really there.
Second, we rely too much on the "experts" to tell us what the future will be. Here again, too much distraction the same kind but different effect blinds us to the obvious.
Third, some particular aspect of the current opportunity is forcing us into a particular way of thinking of the approach to take. So, we are blind to an approach that might be simpler and yield more benefit.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Occupy Wall Street
I saw a sign hanging around the neck of one of the protesters. It said "A Job is a Right". Hmmm... Is that a right like the right to pursue happiness? If so, how is this enforced? Enforcing the right to pursue happiness means that the government will intervene if your rights are being compromised, meaning, your right to pursue happiness is being prevented or hindered. Or, you could go to court to sue someone for infringing on your rights in some way.
Does the protester think that everyone should be given a job as soon as they want one? So, anyone, say, 16 years or older can decide they want a job, then show up somewhere that has jobs (at the job store?) and demand a job. If the potential employer refuses, the police could be called, or the potential employee might start a lawsuit against the business.
If someone has a job and they are not performing it very well, they cannot be fired. This would be infringing on their right to have a job. Nobody would ever be fired and nobody would be refused a job if they asked for it. Because it's their right!
Who pays for this? The government? Does it just print money constantly to support the rights of all citizens to have jobs? (I am assuming this right to have a job only extends to citizens).
I wonder what kind of world we'd have if having a job was a right.
Does the protester think that everyone should be given a job as soon as they want one? So, anyone, say, 16 years or older can decide they want a job, then show up somewhere that has jobs (at the job store?) and demand a job. If the potential employer refuses, the police could be called, or the potential employee might start a lawsuit against the business.
If someone has a job and they are not performing it very well, they cannot be fired. This would be infringing on their right to have a job. Nobody would ever be fired and nobody would be refused a job if they asked for it. Because it's their right!
Who pays for this? The government? Does it just print money constantly to support the rights of all citizens to have jobs? (I am assuming this right to have a job only extends to citizens).
I wonder what kind of world we'd have if having a job was a right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)