(incredible line)
Enjoy this fortune cookie Sunday post.

Nomad, you’ve been wandering the desert for decades, what is your secret?

The nomad responds,
“You expect water?

Predict its coming,
Understand its flow, and always
Know that which you seek.

No, it’s not water which I’m after. If it were I would have left the desert long ago.

What I seek is Thirst.”

Every time I think I know exactly what I want, immediately something else bubbles up beneath the surface that I value far more. The common theme is freedom. The thinking goes, earn enough wealth, and you will be free. And yet…

money cannot purchase freedom from pursuing it

We all share a persistent search for purpose. Only through meaning, may we experience satisfaction in our life and labor. A moment of contemplation makes vividly clear the distinction between the pursuit of wealth, and directly nourishing that which we need, liberty.

After walking enough connected mazes the importance of this point is painfully clear. If we’re unaware of the distinction between where our current path leads and where we truly wish to be, we are destined to wander without end. We have only one life to distinguish between that which is our water or our thirst, so it’s critical we make efficient use of that dwindling resource.

An inner compass is our truest guide

You shouldn’t accept anything I preach at face value, but I hope you hear my thoughts. I’m wise enough to know how foolish I am. A reminder of caution: be wary of anyone who exudes endless confidence, they’re the most likely to lead you off a cliff.

Cultural hegemony is the philosophic and sociological concept, originated by the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, that a culturally-diverse society can be ruled or dominated by one of its social classes. It is the dominance of one social group over another, e.g. the ruling class over all other classes. The ideas of the ruling class come to be seen as the norm; they are seen as universal ideologies, perceived to benefit everyone whilst only really benefiting the ruling class.

The weakness of such thinking is that there is no social mobility, and that individuals and organizations didn’t work sufficiently to earn their wealth and position.

Administrators of Social Web Networks are a Ruling Class

There is merit in comparing social web business structures to cultural hegemony. The driving design purpose and intent of the networks is to maximize profits from an exponentially growing or ubiquitous user base, not to optimize distributed communication for groups.

Brad Burnham compares web services to governments, and I don’t think he’s far off in his analogy. Private property (a leased or owned web server) currently gives corporations the right to deny service to anyone at any time with little cause. Isolation is their justice system’s penal enforcement. These networks tax their citizens attention to profit, in exchange for connectivity. Commoditization of social networks will drive this taxation to zero, forcing businesses to compete on value delivered to each member (smarter use of shared info, in a way that’s sensitive to member privacy).

The technical development and scale of such networks has been proven by several large existing social networks: Friendster, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, Google Buzz, & Open Source simulacrum Status.net, Identica, Cliqset. But not everyone can build and host such large social networks, so efforts have been made to encourage distributed social web options. But even in open source distributed systems data formats must be described and supported by the software, which is controlled by a small organization (social class) who’s interests may diverge from members of the network. Cross compatibility may bind the creative hands of divergent designers. If you want to share data (read/write) on social network X you have to play by their rules.

Throughout our lives we rely on the technological designs of others. From baby formulas and clothing to transportation and education the world we live in is an extraordinary mashup of legacy and new technology. For the majority of tech we use, it’s a process of adopting some one else’s standards. We treat the majority of our world as a black box.

This is no different in the space of software. In fact due to complexity of organization we have an ever growing reliance on layers of software that we don’t understand which knowingly or not inflict constraints on derivative work. We’re constantly exploring other group’s thought systems and mental constructs in order to accomplish tasks. And based on time restrictions we are forced in many cases to adopt “techno religions” without spending sufficient time understanding the nuances of previous design decisions.

c++ is killing me softly

In my work life as an engineer I’ve coded and recoded many thousands of lines of software, the majority of which is written in c++. I struggle to maintain consistency between several engineers working with the same source, and git has recently become a helpful tool for that task (if I can only get them to embrace it).

We are often stuck writing throw away customized interfaces and massaging data to conform to legacy software. I categorize this activity as painfully tedious. But this work’s pain was only exasperated by needless restrictions and complications of the c++ language. On a regular basis I come to the conclusion that the folks in charge of designing the language standard don’t use it for real problems.

The standard libraries for all their utility and potential processing speed are an obvious product of group think and feature bloat.
What’s wrong with c++:

• The standard is hundreds of pages long and chock full of surprises and exceptions
• The abstraction of the language is mired in a swamp of backwards compatibility with ill thought component libraries
• Looking through those libraries source code exposes a cacophony of arcane bloated syntax with splashes of needless complexity to interpret objects and compile down to assembly. No offense to the poor ladies and gents who manage the libraries, they are doing the best they can in a bad situtation
• Confining structures to heirarchies of static types introduces a level of syntactical weight and complexity in exchange for a first order level of testing and in many cases a minor boost in implementation speed. It is not a fair exchange in my opinion, the casualty is the inhibition of developer clarity and creativity

The root of this design disaster may be assembly or it may be group think, or the dreaded feature bloat. C++ may be the perfect language for some developers but I can’t count myself among them. Still with many years of sunk costs, I’m bound to it as an unwilling servant (in my day job). Over time as a painter is affected by their brush and canvas, my thinking has been bent in ways I wasn’t capable of seeing until I explored other programming languages. It causes me to wonder at how deeply our native spoken language influences the way we think (another great reason for continually learning new languages be they software or spoken).

Refactor Technology to Best Fit Your Imagination’s Need

It’s clear I have very strong biases for certain styles of software development tools, but there’s a general principle beneath the frustration.

To unleash our most creative abilities, we must master our tools. We must make them our own. Only by crafting tools that are an extension of ourselves and the way we think, can we realize the depth of what we’re capable of

At the very least we should make a regular effort to experiment with tools that better harmonize and amplify our personal style of thinking.

Revolutionary patterns have immeasurable impact for the future. The smallest idea can spread through our entire civilization changing everything. But even a ripple now will have little lasting effect (the pet rock, anything pop culture).

I like to think long-term to put things in perspective. What will happen to anything I write, or any work I do a thousand years from now. My guess is there’s very little to nothing I’ve done so far that will last that long, and I want to change that. But what patterns could I possibly introduce that could survive 30 or 40 generations?

As an example, I look to things in history that survived for that time period.

• Religion is an obvious choice but one that doesn’t suit me well
• Of course writers are another great choice for work longevity, as long as there has been a written language, documents have survived the wheel of time. I suspect this blog won’t be available a thousand years from now in any form
• Philosophy is another great example, we keep records of ancient thinkers and review their ideas
• Political systems can last for some time, and the principles and ideas of law can also extend for thousands of years

Work with the greatest chance of surviving a millenium has a wide range of value to our society now.

It’s probably silly, but one way of archiving data is to create a resonating signal that contains the information we wish to send forward. Perhaps an embedded signal in seismic activity, or in super slow changing events (orbital shifts ). In addition to broadcasting our DNA into the future (procreating), we can send some of our best ideas, and knowledge forward. Who knows what future civilizations will glean from our humble musings?

I feel the need to create a sand castle in time, despite the fact that it will wash away with the next tide.

Observe the Illusory Nature of Resistance

We all share moments where we can’t jumpstart our bodies and minds to action. This morning I was struck with powerful urge to just “sit” after waking up. Instead of pursuing desired activities (writing, walking, then coding), I could feel the pull to take a nap, or stare at the empty living room and space out.

I’m a huge fan of a well earned siesta, but for crying out loud, it was 8am and I’d only been up a couple of hours. As I sat frozen on the couch I put all of my attention on the source of slack. Do you know what I perceived?

Nothing.

It was a beautiful emptiness.
No ambition, no hunger, no desire.
Just blissful calm.

But the slack had no identifiable boundaries. There was literally nothing I could relate to the apathy, so I got up and moved. Without a foundation or connection to the rest of self, apathy has such a weak gravity. It’s little surprise that there’s nothing behind the curtain of slack. Maybe one day, when I have conquered the urgency of value chasing, I’ll return to visit the beautiful emptiness. I might learn something from such a restful state.

Hunger

Here’s one beast that anyone who over eats, or has addictions can relate to. This is above and beyond normal hunger associated with requiring sustenance. The nature of Hunger is endless. No matter how much we consume, the hunger returns a few hours later. The cravings for food, entertainment, information, or attention all fall into the category of this inexhaustible Hunger.

In my short time on Earth I’ve lived with a mighty Hunger for food and Thirst for beverages. Never satisfied, I construct massive iced coffees to feed my caffeine Hunger. Years ago I drank too much (booze), and blazed through almost a decade of smoking sweet clove cigarettes.

The nature of craving a desired substance is another illusory state of mind. Focus your will and attention well and you will recognize the disconnect between the Hunger and self. We are not our Hunger.

We chase a desired substance because of a future imagined state of satisfaction. Looking further, you can see that the future satisfaction erodes and is replaced by Hunger once again. The satisfaction isn’t real or lasting. The desired satisfaction state is over exagerated by our predictive mind. It’s just another illusion. The truth is that most forms of Hunger are merely distractions.

Disclaimer: this fortune cookie wisdom brought to you by a gentleman who just downed a big iced coffee and an egg sandwich

The analogy of a candle flame to the sum experiences of a single life is a beautiful reminder of our precious gift. Each of our individual existences is brief compared to the timescales of:

1. nations
2. civilization
3. the human species
4. life on Earth
5. our solar system
6. our galaxy
7. our universe
   

In the greater scheme of things, even just a thousand years from of our births, the likelihood of being remembered or impacting continually adapting life is minuscule. A legacy is something we leave behind after we’re gone. It can be property, wealth, or more essential, the lessons we learned in life. Often times families do their best to pass on any wisdom they may have accrued, by communicating deeply with inheriting generations.

Great scholars, and learned masters of art and science have used universities and wondrous written works to capture the most important concepts of their time. Even now, we still look back and learn from the philosophy of Socrates and Plato, several millenniums after their deaths. A challenge throughout human history is preserving knowledge of it’s passing. Not only do we wish to avoid repeating earlier tragedies, but there is an undercurrent of civilizations forward advancement. Going hand in hand with this direction, is the improvement of individual lives. Greater liberties, freedoms, and education are made available to each generation. But in our collective race after efficiency, we sometimes suffer setbacks, or degrade the quality of our lives or education.

One Gift

In navigating the pitfalls of greed, self absorption and destruction, there comes a time when a person must decide how they wish to be remembered. The decision is made evident by each of our choices. How we live and act, is a message to younger generations. These challenging questions help define our life’s message:

• How precious are your values and integrity to others? Are they precious to you?
• Do you blindly follow the will of others, or do you take responsibility for your own choices and actions?
• Are you cognizant of your own shortfalls and hubris?

If there was one gift you would bequeath to those that come long after your time here, what would it be? My wish is to inspire greater self awareness and thoughtfulness to people that may be overwhelmed with demanding schedules and stress.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Michael Rubin: Did Galileo Inspire Social Media? Four Parallel Observations. (mpdailyfix.com)
• Plato’s dialogues, part 1: Why Plato? (guardian.co.uk)
• Newfound Planet Might Be Near Death (space.com)
• Space: The Boring Frontier (terranova.blogs.com)

In addition to a lively performance accompanied by some interesting data,  Dan Gilbert shares a few quotes that aid in making his point.

The powerful quote from Sir Thomas Browne that gets to the heart of the matter:

“I am the happiest man alive. I have that in me that can convert poverty to riches, adversity to prosperity, and I am more invulnerable than Achilles; fortune hath not one place to hit me.”

Dan has struck the ball out of the park with this quote.  Observers are immediately either intrigued by the lucid optimistic confidence held by Sir Browne or are affronted by Thomas’ complete disconnect from materialism.  As a member of the former group, I chose to believe the sentiment and ponder the limits of one’s control over their perception (optimism vs. pessimism).  It is interesting to imagine how the second group reacted to this quote.  They must have asked themselves, “Why introduce a delusional writer’s quote?”, “What else do I know about Sir Thomas Browne, why would he brazenly lie?”.  Even opponents to Dan’s basic premise are inspired to question common knowledge.

Taking this concept to the extreme was William Shakespeare (sure Will the judgments of good and bad are byproducts of intelligence):

“Tis nothing good or bad, But thinking makes it so”

and then Dan Gilbert gives us a more modest view sharing the thoughts of Adam Smith (added a skipped  section of the quote for completeness):

“The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.”

Adam Smith’s philosophy: “suffering comes from exaggerating differences in status” could be a corollary of the Buddhist principle “suffering comes from desire”.  If we accept this statement, we are inclined to find the proper balance of our passion and our integrity.

Why Satisfaction?

• satisfaction is a direct result of completing a task
  • Ideally a promise we make to ourselves
  • it is achieved whether or not we are successful, as long as a lesson was learned
• although a state of mind like happiness, it is generally a rational product of doing things that are good for us and/or others
• satisfaction can leave us calm and confident
  • a beacon to others who are unsure of the best type of paths to pursue
• satisfaction is an opposing force to unbalanced ambition