Daily Writing
change (no.2) choose
There are inspiring people who are making change and not looking for a paycheck or pat on the back. Ziggy Alberts, Tristan Harris, Seth Godin, John Mark Comer, Joe Hollier, Yvon Chouinard to name a few. Creators in spaces from music to clothing, all doing things different.
How do we get there?
Choose.
These people don't start that way. They choose everyday to make change. To create something and put it into the world, creating new pockets of curiosity, generosity, and connection.
They build a routine to foundationally fall back on when they step out. They are able to choose change because, to them, it's the default.
The choice to step out from this routine differentiates them. They don't commit to the practice to catch the bigger fish or make more stuff. They commit to make changes and solutions.
How do we choose everyday?
Guard Rails.
Intentionally choosing change everyday requires discipline. Discipline doesn't come naturally to each of us. We need guard rails of two kinds-
Habits and mantras.
Practice that has been conditioned to an unconscious level, and thought behind speech or action to repeatedly recenter our focus. These both keep us in line to do the work we are called to do.
How do they know what to change?
They don't.
They show up everyday trusting the process they have created, the guard rails they have setup, and the intention they have in their hearts to make change.
They know that showing up is the most important part of the work they do, and the way they engage their audience is directly informed by this- never trying to appease or pander, always trying to create the next right thing.
change (no.1) applause
There are people who are making real change and not looking for a paycheck or pat on the back. Ziggy Alberts, Tristan Harris, Seth Godin, John Mark Comer, Joe Hollier, and Yvon Chouinard to name a few. Creators in spaces from music to clothing, all doing things different. Applause is a grotesque byproduct of the generous work they do.
Seeking encouragement is a habit that's easy to pick up but hard to kick.
It's an output minded focus that detracts from our work.
Receiving validation for the work we do is dangerous.
As Seth Godin says, "reassurance is futile."
The counter-thought is the echo chamber. How can our work meaningfully effect people at their core if we aren't hearing from them? How can we know when our work stops resonating?
These thoughts come from the Resistance. I'm entirely convinced now that the creative people listed above are not caught up in asking whether they are still relevant but are entirely committed to carrying out their creative act of Defiance because it is what they do, with or without applause.
They do it because they have defined the who and what their change involves, and they know it works when they are allowed to continue creating that change.
Fantastic
Film director Wes Anderson works magic. I was captured by his imaginarium of Roald Dahl's 1970 classic children's tale years after it hit theaters in 2009 and years before I was ready to write about it.
Fantastic Mr. Fox takes you to a world familiar but different.
Talking animals- check. Humans made artless fools- check.
Anderson isn't interested in reinventing the wheel; he just wants to reveal what our society has forgotten about the spokes.
The film lives in a world we've seen countless times. That is innovation. Every animation in 2009 was about out of this world characters with a wacky, semi-complicated plot (e.g. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Up, Coraline). Anderson created something simple, grounded, and relatable to teach a more important lesson.
We're all a little different, but there's something kind of fantastic about that, isn't there?
There it is- no fluff.
With inspired visuals, a distinctive soundtrack, and a wit-filled script, this world we've seen again and again shows us how the mundane is fantastic.
I don't want to belabor why this matters or how it is shown in the film. This one is purposefully selfish-
Go watch Fantastic Mr. Fox.
inspired images // accidentally wes anderson
the film // Fantastic Mr. Fox
the question
What problem do you solve for people?
Life is the great math teacher. Writing problems on the board, waiting for a student who cares enough to share a solution. The students have been given more than enough tools to work it out but bystander effect, fear of failure, and peer pressure halt any sum in its track.
The difference between math and life is certainty.
If we're doing math right, we can be 100% sure of a math solution. But if we're doing life right, we are never 100% sure of the solution.
And that's not a bad thing.
Uncertainty leaves open the door for more and more questions. More and more problems to solve. More and more kinds of people to bless.
Lean into uncertainty. Lean into the question.
read
Writers drink bigelow vanilla-chai black tea, use a no. 2 pencil, keep record of earth-shattering vss's (very short sentences), and are obsessed with good grammar and latin roots. Or I imagine as much.
These are vain without one thing to make a writer a writer: reading (with just this piece you have become a writer).
If you don’t have time to read, you don’t have the time (or the tools) to write. Simple as that.
Stephen King
Commonly misconstrued is the idea that great writers are wholly original. Jeff Goins writes, "the most creative minds in the world aren't especially creative; they're just better at rearranging." Adaptation is the great coalescent.
Every great writer was inspired by a writer whom we should label "greater". That's how math works. Take part from one and you are left with less than one.
In actuality, the great, inspired writers take from their favorites and build something even more true to themselves and original. We are even more than the sum total of the blessings we've received in our lives; writer's influence included.
So, we read.
We read because, in the words of Ram Dass, "when all is said and done, we're all just walking each other home."
they say...
People who hear this phrase and cringe are movers and shakers. Noticing what's wrong with life is the first step to doing something about it. The people who do something about it are Nelson Mandela's and Rosa Park's.
It might take a village to raise a child, but it almost certainly takes a child to reform that village for all human flourishing. One voice out of many.
E Pluribus Unum got us to the top, but what will bring us down is the failure to listen to the child saying the emperor has no clothes.
(They won't say it because it's popular; they'll say it because it's true.)
***Side note on atomic change: In truly simple ways, many people live out Defiance to the status quo in their lives without showiness or wanting a trophy. It doesn't take movements with unions and speakers to go against the grain for change. It requires only that one person start using a reusable straw. And then another...***
read:
The Emperor's New Clothes // Hans Christian Andersen
Atomic Habits // James Clear
penny for your thoughts
In pre-Revolution France, coffee shops were antithetical to our's today. They were the reason pre-Revolution France became post-Revolution France.
Commonly known as penny universities, French men (at the time male exclusivity certainly stymied the amount and quality of ideas that could have been) came for cheap caffeine and the free flow of knowledge.
Enter individualist America (growing increasingly unaware of the distances between us).
Coffee has very slowly become one of (if not the) consumer's top drink choices. You can't beat the warmth, energy, and aesthetic a house cup provides. So too does the vibe we feel at coffee shops foster a controlled, efficient environment.
We could return to the open-discourse of penny universities, but our pluralist society creates barriers of social norms, self-obsession, and ideological lines. It's hard to break down walls and have productive conversations for human flourishing with strangers.
We start with steps.
Small step: I have a friend who will ask another customer about their drink choice, how they chose, and eventually what they create. (He has genuine fascination with people's creative sides and digs for stranger's "why")
Big step: I know a creative who wants to open a modern-day penny university, creating affordable coffee and space for people to share, create, and encourage ideas. (Even equipped with table flags to signify wanting to hear ideas, share ideas, or just chat!!)
The first step is coming up with your next step. Then go.
It will hopefully only cost you a penny but gain you an ally for your journey.
status quo
Whatever the status quo is, it's wrong. How can you tell?
We have a society made up of 300 million people with vast and world-shaping potential. How many of them are able to step out of their comfort zone and try to change things? Not enough.
The status quo is wrong.
everybody says that
Why does everybody say that? Is it true or is it popular?
Telling the difference between the two is essential for artists because artists must have good taste. (But) The same can also be said for bank-tellers because "water-cooler" and lunch break conversations are where we look for truth.
All conversation revolves around determining if something is true or popular. Be it through false truths we tell ourselves and rumors we spread at other's expense, or the praise we give and inspiration we put out in the world, we are wired to talk about and find truth.
Look at two places we spend an overabundance of time at daily (regardless of location)- the news and social media.
We are submerged in a search for truth- his truth, her truth, their truth, the truth- with no leader able to tell us which is truly true.
(But) Michaelangelo couldn't create until he understood his own creation. Eric Liddell didn't "feel God's pleasure" until he understood his purpose.
Each of us has a sculpture to craft, a race to run. We can't do it through the noise of truth and popularity. We have to find the place outside any of us where our truth stops and the other truest truth begins.
Then we understand that "everybody says that" to avoid admitting this truth.
west tx
West Texas grass is not beautiful until it's laden with frost.
Greens and yellows and brown all coated by a sheet of white to birth a silver gleam. Bermuda grass, totally out of its element, is tested by the burden of a snowy glacé. A weighted blanket on leafy tundra, a winter's night unveils the true character of the frozen turf beneath.
A person is not beautiful until we see their resilience under the pressure of life.
Back straight and dimples high flying in the face of pain and the admission of uncertainty. It's not denial of the weight, but acceptance of the hope. Having suffered the trials of this world (and expecting more to come), the faith-filled wanderer is able to stand with a renewed spirit, fully recognizing a new truth:
Snow will always be melted by a new sun.
//
I still remember the day I knew I wanted to be a writer.
Thirteen. Fingers trembling over our family's white-polycarbonate, 2006 MacBook. I wrote one sentence.
As Sean walked, he could hear the pounding of his metallic boots through the gravitized hallway.
I've remembered that sentence since the moment I wrote it. I ran to my sister, pushed her face to the screen, and witnessed her reaction.
We still reference it today in jest, and after years of denying my creative yearnings, masking the art I always meant to create, I cherish this sentence so closely as inspiration and the purpose for my life and the work I want to do.
I believe I was designed- created for this, as I believe that every person was designed with a primal, distinctive purpose and work.
Victor Frankl wrote it better than I ever could (but I still write...):
"Everyone's task is as unique as his opportunity to implement it... In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his life."
counterintuitive
How does one learn to draw with their non-dominant (ND) hand?
If you thought, "the same way as learning to draw with their dominant (D) hand", it's actually more complex than that...
When we have been inundated in a complete way of thinking and doing, our options are to either to force the alternative (we sometimes call this 'rote') or to lay new pathways.
We learn to write with our ND hand the complete opposite way we learned with our D hand. If you started by picking up a pen, make that the last step. If getting ink to paper was how you reached excellence, think before touching down your quill.
The mind is slow in unlearning what it has been long in learning.
~ Seneca
In neuroscience, discoveries have molecularly proven that our brain's are shaped by what we learn and do. Solve 2+2 to =4, and our brain trains that equation to be sorted into our "data base" that consists of all the learning we have ever done. It becomes what we call, "a neural pathway."
What's fascinating about these pathways is that the more we train and leave unquestioned the inputs into our brain, the deeper in our brain these pathways become carved. This is wonderful for automating tasks like the sum of two basic numbers or texting with eyes closed, one-handed (possible if you're under twenty).
Where this becomes a problem is when we need to unlearn things about the world and reframe our social, theological, or technological context.
We live in a time where information should be taken with a full shaker of salt. The process for seeing the world in new ways complicates our understanding of learning.
Let's choose to lay new pathways, not force an alternative ideology, lifestyle, definition of love (etc.) onto our preexisting frameworks.
When training your ND hand to draw, here are some practical, healthful tips:
Learn (relearn) how letters are shaped by your ND hand.
Do hand/brain exercises (brush your teeth and comb your hair at the same time)
Do many, varying activities with your ND hand (texting, using a fork, opening doors).
In the same way, don't pick up the pen and start writing a manifesto on racial reconciliation or vaccine nationalism without getting out of yourself and away from the unrefined, derivative beliefs we all commonly hold undisputed.
Then, when all of the pathways are carved, pick up a pen- start writing.
reintegrate
Almost everything will work again if you unplug it for a few minutes, including you...
When (not if) you crash and burn due to crippling fear and anxiety, unrealistic expectations, a callous word, resurfaced trauma, or the weight of our sinful, messed-up world, take a day off.
Stop work; stop your side-hustle. Stop vying for attention in whatever social sphere you're orbiting in an attempt to reach the center.
Recuperate. Restore. Revive.
You may find the world will still be intact when you return, usually in a better state because of your restart.
Anne Lamott, almost everything
clichès
Clichès make up a majority of our speech from day to day. We cast about expressions looking for meaning amidst these recurrent phrases. Take a look at your last essay from high school or college and see how prevalent these "stereotypes" are in our speech and writing.
Even Homer partakes in this convention:
"Joy, warm as the joy that shipwrecked sailors feel / when they catch sight of land... their bodies crusted with salt but buoyed up with joy as they plant their feet on solid ground again, spared a deadly fate."
Odysseus' reunion with Penelope, from 'The Odyssey'
Notice the amount of imagery that does well to paint visuals in the listener's mind. "Warm as joy", "catch sight of", "on solid ground", "shipwrecked sailors".
Poets and orators coined so many phrases we still use today because our brain needs shortcuts to make speech easier. *I can write, "read between the lines to see the truth that only time will tell how every cloud has a silver lining", without much imagination or effort because of how familiar with these cliches we have become
(*While this isn't the most powerful sentence written, it shows how easy it is to write using clichès- I count 3 words of originality).
Let's look at origins. The phrase "full circle" was created by the progenitor of 1700 words in the English language, William Shakespeare. The reason Shakespeare coined a phrase like this could have been rooted in its "insidious memorability." Plays and poems of the day were recited orally, and without notes. Having to memorize copious amounts of lines for scenes leads to the necessary evil of creating highly memorable "catch phrases" (or clichès) to insert into a script.
This is not a bad thing- to the contrary, it frees our mind up for problem solving or other kinds of creative thinking- but it is something we need to recognize. Language exists to create relationship.
As we drift farther out from our roots in classical education, into a world of digital connection and untempered social skills, we need to be conscious of how our words deepen or shallow relationships. We can reclaim language and begin to plant a trellis of intentionality.
Speaking words in a vacuum does nothing; you must garden with your words. You must live in the flower bed if you want to grow something there.
Redeeming How We Talk, AJ Swoboda and Ken Wytsma
timely article // the Chicago Tribune on COVID-19 philology
previous read // but, so, i mean, as far as
stripped
"How do you take something really simple, and make it better not by adding more, but by stripping it down?"
This philosophy stands behind so many innovative, minimalist technologies* that are hitting the scene in a "big tech"-dominated world. People are realizing they have more options than the default, and they are willing to choose wholeness and intentionality in spite of these options being harder to assimilate.
These products exist, and they don't carry the burden of the forbidden fruit in their design. Originals writer, Adam Grant, writes about why employees who use Firefox or Chrome on their work PCs are "more committed and better performers" in the companies in which they reside. These workers are "originals" because they reject the default tech (Internet Explorer) in favor of taking "a bit of initiative to seek out an option that might be better."
How can we intentionally choose the products that we bring into our lives, instead of having them chosen for us?
And how can we educate those with less influence to see the injustice they are forced into? Executives from Silicon Valley have, for a long time, refused to give their children smartphone access as they know the effects their own products have. In the European Journal of Social Psychology, John T. Jost writes about the perception of merit-based economic systems saying, "the people who suffer the most from a given state of affairs are paradoxically the least likely to question, challenge, reject, or change it."
Those in places of affluence who are able to see the dangers of technology are the ones who are in the place today to shape the future of those who cannot shape it for themselves.
It's our job to become more intentional about this way of life that has creeped into culture so pervasively over the past two decades. Take steps towards choosing...
***And discover these creators for your own education!
*tech // Remarkable 2 and insider Blog
tech // thelightphoneII
tech // Fossil Hybrid Smartwatch
paper // Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance
mover and shaker // Center for Humane Technology
read // lpII review
read // stg 3
read // not the end
not the end
As I've become aware of this space, I have followed, supported, and been enthralled by the Center for Humane Technology pioneering the discipline of ethical technology. Naturally, I was pumped about a docu-film on our Social (media) Dilemma directed and informed by CHT contributors, and produced by Netflix. I find the result problematic.
The Social Dilemma attacks our cultural and technological failures from within, pulling ammunition from former creators and exec's in Facebook, Google, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, etc...
Tristan Harris, whom I cannot praise enough for his work reforming Silicon Valley and educating Capitol Hill, leads the charge in calling out what companies do with our personal data, attention, money, and time. We need the CHT approaching the trespasses tech companies make in our lives, but The Social Dilemma goes a step farther.
I've described its tone as "doom and gloom", and "apocalyptic" also seems fitting.
I trust everything reported to be real, dangerous and in need of checks and balances, but the way this information is presented, I predict, generates one of two unhealthy outcomes: First, people shutdown. Attacking something that has been institutionalized as much as social media breeds friction. Natural defense mechanisms arise within us when actions we have contributed to directly are villainized. Look at the current polarization of racial injustice conversations.
Second, it runs the risk of becoming merely a hashtag to hound an institution that bandwagoners have been looking for reason to take shots at for years. I'm not saying hipsters are bad for veritable movement's momentum, but the phasal and 'fizzle out' nature of their support wanes when needing wax.
Maybe this is the only way to approach this subject in our time, and in that, The Social Dilemma gets it right.
Ultimately, I believe the CHT plans to release a second campaign focusing on holistic and redemptive technology, and how we can use tech to grow closer to each other and more aware. I also believe a coalition of so many of these ethically-centric technology companies needs to be created to bring resources to a unified location. With these two things, I can understand and still support the grim scenario The Social Dilemma portrays, and we can all remember that this is not the end of technology's progress in our world.
read // stripped
read // stg 3
read // the cure
the part we create from...
Where does creativity lie?
Historically, creatives have been heralded 1%'ers who terraform our world into something new. Their skills in accessing innovation and out-of-the-box thinking are reportedly unparalleled. Gifted as "outliers", they display the capacity for reaching deeper within themselves to dredge up a masterpiece of originality.
We all know and have heard that this skill is not exclusive. We can all be creatives. From the Zanders in their passionately crafted work, The Art of Possibility:
Suppose for a moment that vital, expressive energy flows everywhere, that is the medium for the existence of life, and that any block to participating in that vitality lies within ourselves.
But there's too much congestion from our jobs, our life, our stress and trauma. We imagine this mars us from ever leading the truly creative life. We see the scars and know we can never be whole, this side of Eden.
But scars are external. They are not the thing we are loved for, not the thing we draw purpose from, not the thing we create from. As Pressfield writes, "The part we create from can't be touched by anything our parents did, or society did (or we did!!). That part is unsullied, uncorrupted." Creativity lies here, beyond our failure and doubt, in a place only the God of the universe knows fully.
So, we can learn this. We can sit in our mess till we find who we really are, deep down. That's where creativity lays its head every night, awaiting our awakening.
previous read // true voice
the 'no' practice
Saying no gets a bad rep. So pick a day, and say no to everything but one effort.
Believe it or not, you can get bad reactions to this idea. The reasoning can sound selfish when said. This implication creates need for apt presentation and justification of your drive.
What meaningful work is life distracting you from? What could you do to create space for that work? Given the space for it, would that meaningful work replace work that distracts from it and matters less?
These were the questions running through my head when I decided to say 'no' every Tuesday and devote the whole day to writing- a passion I wanted to follow unhindered. The things I say 'no' to include, email, meetings, entertainment and other work- writing is my work on Tuesday.
Saying no does not mean I "Tom Sawyer" my work. Saying no means I intentionally plan to say no.
As a student, I am blessed to be able to craft a schedule with one work day devoted to non-obligatory work. I relegate homework to other days as the worthwhile tradeoff for unhindered Tuesday focus.
Ultimately, I want writing to be my career (a fact I'm realizing more and more as I commit to the 'no' practice). This practice enables me to pursue the practice in my life that I want to the most. It could do the same for you...
read // skyscrapers
but, so, i mean, as far as...
We've all been there. Forming sentences is hard. Particularly the start.
It's a struggle for me now and I have the benefit of deep thought, first drafts and revisions. When I overheard this (^title^) attempt from a table to my back, I felt it an appropriate start to examine patience in speech.
Talking is like computing. We, with our hardrives of knowledge, experience and memory, take time to spit out the things we want to say. We have to attempt many combinations of colloquial language codes (sometimes clichés) to get across the right feeling, direction or thought.
We can cmd-alt-dlt 100% of the like, anyway and um's that enter our speech by taking a minute, and finding our footing before jumping into expression.
People are far more impressed by exact speech than rushed stumbling.
Take time. Be precise.
stg 3...
The third stage of cultural evolution came in 1974 when Bill Gates began work on the world's first computer.
The Information Age began, and the digital world was born.
Fast-forward 40 years. One-twelfth of a year's waking and sleeping time is spent browsing. Social media, our fast-food information stop, has now become a larger advertising channel than print.
You would think we would bore ourselves to death with this level of consumption rampant, but instead, online courses and education have become a leading method of learning. "Instant Activism" through online campaigns allow us to research an organization, join their movement, and give our time or money to make a change.
Moore's Law says that computing dramatically increases in power, and decreases in relative cost, at an exponential pace. In 40 years we won't be spending two-twelfths online. Try six-twelfths. Half.
Is that really where we're headed?
Cultural evolution no. 1, drawing, bled into digital form with visual effects, while eloquent no. 2, writing, was aided in reproducibility by word processors. Is "stage 3" the paragon that conforms all others to itself? If we're seeing the height of cultural revolutions that all future ones learn from, we need to be cautious of its control. "...Great responsibility", the old man said...
This shift necessitates organizations like The Center for Human Technology who are pushing Silicon Valley to reintroduce ethics into their software design.
If we are headed for a future where innovation is propelled by those who have the resources to adapt to a digital world, education and moderation are vital. Technology and social media come without "Drug Facts" labels despite having deeper addictive and detrimental effects than most drugs (The CHT created a "Ledger" of sociological effects for public awareness).
It's revealing to discover that we no longer choose companies like Apple or Google to be "crucial" to our lives. They choose us. Or, more accurately, they choose our culture.
For better and worse, we are inundated in an "ecosystem" (a term actually used by technologists to refer to the phones, wearables, and other tech that a company employs to create an echo chamber of self-affirmation for their brand), and our maneuverability out of this system is dependent on our awareness of its existence.
We can play into a system profiting off attention or we can take steps to craft an intentional life.
My core thought is this: can we choose more of the things we bring into our lives instead of having them chosen for us?
The Center for Humane Technology
previous read // lpII review
read // stripped