Is Love just another emotion similar to happiness, compassion, anxiety, or doubt? Ancient Greeks had four distinct words for love: agape, eros, philia, and storgē. (Translations cited below). In English, however, the word love encompasses all of the complex feelings associated with its different interpretations. With emotions ranging from general affection to passionate romance, the all-inclusive nature of this word carries but a modicum of clarity, distilled only by the context in which it is used. Love between two brothers with its camaraderie and shared understanding, is very different than love for parents, or love that a man feels for his sweetheart. While some of these feelings must overlap, the intensity of emotions involved, and even the nature of intent behind those emotions can vary quite dramatically. To linguists, the English definition of love might seem very broad; failing to consider the variations of love and how one might experience it differently with different people.
But what if the experience of love is the same, irrespective of context? What if the array of feelings associated with love actually result from society's need to differentiate between what feelings are appropriate for different types of relationships? Do infants feel love for their brothers and sisters the same way they feel love for their parents? In this view, love for a friend would be no different than love for a parent or a sibling. While the difference would lie in varying intensities of love, the fundamental understanding of love between all people would be the same. Every love would be, for lack of a better word, intrinsic. The all-inclusive english term "Love" then, would not be broad at all. It would be quite accurate.
Agapē refers to a general affection. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard.
Eros is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. It can also apply to dating relationships and marriage.
Philia means friendship. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, and includes loyalty to friends, family, and community.
Storge means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring.
Before the days of oil-based economies and billion dollar monopolies; when vehicles for transportation were manipulated with gravity and momentum, rather than by corporate greed and political stampedes, our world was run with uncomplicated, plain vanilla mechanics. Transportation was a means to a purely functional end, rather than a symbol of social rank. The droves of people sitting in their oil-thirsty automobiles driving to nearby locations are a reminder that complex technology without foresight can be extremely wasteful. As we have become more reliant on our cars, we have failed to account for the impact they have had on our natural resources. The movement towards increasing complexity in transportation has not been accompanied with enough foresight to ensure its long-term sustainability. As a result, we now find ourselves in a situation with wasteful means of accomplishing the simple task of small-scale (1-5 miles) transportation. Our morning commute is just one such example.
Every once in a while, an idea comes along that presents a very practical solution for a large-scale, mainstream problem. Longboarding for urban transportation is one such possibility. Almost as fast as a bicycle but much more maneuverable and portable, a longboard is a practical and simple alternative to walking, bicycling, and even short drives. Unlike skateboards designed for ollies and tricks, longboards are much safer and more stable, even on less than perfect roads. They are quiet, easy to use, and do not require any more infrastructural development than the existing bike lanes and sidewalks that are already common in most cities. Beyond learning how to push and turn, longboarding is easy enough that almost any middle-aged office-goer in a suit and tie could half their walking time to work and reduce their reliance on more carbon-intensive forms of transport. In comparison to a bicycle, it is skirt-friendly and doesn't have any greasy gears or sprockets to dirty your pants. Learning to use one requires much less commitment (and money) than that needed for a bicycle or a car and for an innovation with so many benefits, it is almost suspiciously simple!
The problem of small scale transportation has been addressed by a myriad of relatively complex innovations ranging from Smart cars to Vespa scooters. As a resident of Manhattan, I have been intrigued by the recent popularity of "Segway" (www.segway.com) transporters. An electrically powered short-distance "personal transporter", this rather complicated piece of technology relies of accelerometers and gyroscopes to to balance itself and its passenger. It is powered by lithium ion batteries which can be recharged at proprietary charging stations. While it is often marketed as a "zero emissions vehicle", it is important to note that the energy required to charge it comes from your local coal-fired power plant and relies on the same antiquated, carbon-intensive energy infrastructure that emits millions of tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Having ridden one, I would say that its probably more difficult to ride and less safe than a longboard. While it does propel you at about 10mph, this is approximately the same speed as a longboard. In considering the complexity in the design of a Segway (accerlerometers, computing power, lithium batteries, etc.) one must ask; what is it about the urban congestion problem that warrants such a technologically sophisticated solution? And what additional transportation benefit would this solution have over a longboard, to justify its environmental impact?
Given the practicality and benefits of the longboard for small-scale transporation, it is remarkable that such a practical solution to the urban congestion problem has not achieved as much mainstream market penetration as the Segway. With such simplicity in its favor, it is unlikely that this is due to any functional deficiency in longboard design, but rather due to the perception of skateboarding in the public eye. I would like to suggest that the stigma associated with skateboarding (juvenile, rebellious, anti-establishment, etc.) is the primary obstacle to the adoption of longboarding by the mainstream market. To illustrate, I wear a suit to work on most mornings and having skated up to my building and walked into the office with my longboard, I have had colleagues question my "maturity". Even some Police departments, having adopted Segways for their patrollers (See: http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/1,1770,37515-1%3B52931-3,00.html) likely did not consider the longboard due to this stigma.
The shift toward simple transportation is not a comfortable one. In order for the mainstream market to adopt longboarding, it will have to shed predispositions and adopt a new thought paradigm. One that values originality, function, community, and the beauty of natural esthetic. In this view, creativity and spontaneity will prevail over uniform technical standards and complicated machinery. An example of such principles in action today is company called Bustin Boards (www.bustinboards.com). Bustin is dedicated to the cause of environmental preservation and natural design. As artistic innovators of the longboard, they are successfully overcoming the stigma that longboarding faces with originality. A growing community of longboarders and artists committed to environmental preservation, Bustin represents a model of ideals for a sustainable future. Much respect Bustin!
The truth is that simpler is, in fact, better. Its more efficient, more reliable, and more carbon neutral. Complexity requires the kind of foresight that architects, engineers, and scientists have never had in the past, and this is what has led us to the unsustainable practices of today. There is an overwhelming need for our society to revert back to its roots and stop relying on resource-intensive technologies with marginal benefit. This shift can only be made with a commitment to the environment under a new thought paradigm, such as that exhibited by Bustin Boards. While the longboard is one way for society to make this shift, there are many more if we shed our biases and think openly. In doing so, I'm sure that many people will observe what I did; that the most compelling solutions to large-scale, mainstream problems are unexpectedly simple.
Today, the United States finds itself disillusioned by an idealistic image of prosperity. Having molded a society based on single-minded profiteering, only to be let down by an economic collapse so severe, that the fundamental business models of large standalone financial institutions is being questioned. These institutions, which have represented a great and prosperous nation, find themselves grappling to keep their noses above water. Highly leveraged, and surviving on capital created from inflated valuations, their leaders have failed to realize that even in the age of Globalization, business must support the nation in which they were founded and in which they flourished. To humanize this notion, this principle is synonymous with “Work for your family and support your roots, not in spite of them”.
A significant shortcoming revealed by leaders of these institutions is that they have failed to collaborate with the nation’s regulatory bodies; viewing the legal structure in business as a hindrance to profitability and growth. A sound regulatory structure is viewed as a business benefit only inasmuch as it enables transactions and controlled liquidity in the capital markets for large enterprises to operate. As momentum grows, increased regulation is required to prevent corruption and deceit, accounting scandals or otherwise. When regulatory bodies evolve to match the scale and complexity of financial transactions, a tension between the profiteering interests of business and the integrity-ensuring interests of regulatory bodies collide. This is where the leaders of financial institutions have failed the country, and ultimately their own institutions. With a rash disdain for laws such as SOX, GAAP frameworks, and the like, they have failed to see the importance of such regulation for the long-term (read indefinite) sustainability of their enterprises. Further, they have failed to see the immense impact their enterprises can have on the country’s economy at large. These leaders have been plagued with a single-minded focus on generating capital, which has led to vague and unstructured business models based on unreasonable levels of speculation. While much of this has taken place due to competitiveness in the markets, many such models have been created largely to circumnavigate the country’s legal framework through sheer complexity.
Partnering with politicians without the objective of helping advance favorable, “business friendly” interests is considered poor business logic. Corporate backing of political parties through monetary gifts and public support lacks even the faintest hint of patriotism, implying only a single-minded, profit-seeking bias. While decisions to support political parties might promote the short-term success of a single large enterprise, they are not sustainable once companies achieve the size and momentum that many of the premier American financial institutions have attained. The enormous impact such enterprises can have on the nation’s economy requires their leaders to support political parties with patriotism (not profiteering) as their underpinnings. More importantly, they must do this in spite of any short-term consequences that any proposed regulation by that political party may have on their next quarter's income statement. The prevailing perspective that patriotism takes a back seat to business lacks the perspective required for an indefinitely sustainable enterprise. This principle holds true despite the effects of globalization, and becomes increasingly important as the economic impact of institutions on the nation at large increase.
"The value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system." -Robert Metcalf
As real-time communication between vast numbers of nodes (people) throughout the world becomes a reality, the power of this principle will become exponentially more apparent. The reaction time of entire organizations will reduce and the landscape will allow anyone to compete with anyone else. Identity management will inevitably become an overwhelming concern, while a node's geographic location will only be important for knowledge acquisition. But what happens to the people at these nodes? Physically, they are all staring at a computer screen sending and receiving pieces of information. The purely intellectual involvement of people in work is not natural, and its physiological effects ultimately limits productivity. Example: The same architect who, no more than two generations ago, would have been playing with blocks, sticks, and paper to design a house, is now staring at a computer screen using computer software to “build” a piece of intellectual capital, which will ultimately be used to build a house. Is creativity hindered, bolstered, or left unchanged? With lower levels of physical involvement in work, blood circulation slows, hand-eye coordination is redefined with a mouse/keyboard, and energy levels decrease. Daily exercise, while extremely beneficial for maintain health, is rarely coordinated with intellectual activity. The end result for the individual at a node is better networking capabilities, combined with lesser contributions to the network. Networking enables synergy, but what is the cumulative power of people when intellectual faculties are not being fully-utilized?
In business literature, this has to be one of the most commonly addressed topics. Evolution, whether its economic, technological, or biological, enables people to adapt to the environment. Since the environment changes without regard to the comfort level or adaptability of people, the burden to change rests upon people as individuals, groups, and ultimately populations.
The process of change can be viewed in two ways: inside-out and outside-in. The latter is comprised of endless trials, innumerable errors, extensive documentation, probabilities, major resource investments, and most importantly, hope. The former is the result of enlightened action; a "knowing" of exactly how to respond to a particular change in the environment, avoiding trial and error. In considering biological evolution, Darwinianism is an example of the outside-in approach. Mutations, most of which are unsuccessful, fail until one ultimately succeeds at helping an organism adapt to its environmental conditions. In business, however, market research and analysis provides us with a view of the market environment; a luxury not available to living organisms that don't have access to the Weather Channel. A company's response to market conditions is not a "shot in the dark" as it is in evolution, but rather a calculated action with probabilities of success associated with it. Such "enlightened" change can only occur through an accurate view of the market conditions. The accuracy of that view, then, is paramount.
A crystal clear pond reflecting the trees surrounding it and the sky above it; like a mirror it reflects the terrestrial world we live in, masking the beauty that lies beneath. A pebble crashes against its glass-like surface, creating perfectly circular waves that move outward and decrease in amplitude as they spread to cover the entire surface captured by the observer's field of vision. In the rare mind that thinks with complete clarity, the disturbance of the pebble, is like a thought that permeates an entire field of thinking. Intense and piercing in the beginning; vast and mellowed as the disturbance is absorbed. As the mind ponders focused complexity, it eventually learns to accept it and allows it to affect everything else within that field of thought. Wisdom results and eventually, a reversion to clarity. Too many pebbles and no time to revert...this is what beginning a semester with a severe bout of jet lag feels like.
I just got back from Bombay and Goa, India where I met Bollywood movie stars and Sai Baba of Shirdi, and you don't get any pictures..haha!
Doh! They say there is no way around this. We all make mistakes...damn I hate that phrase. Some even go so far as to say that this is a good thing. This is how you learn, they say. What a bunch of hooey! Mistakes are bad. Dress it up with sugar and chocolate frosting all you want but when you make a mistake, it is a bad thing. Hopefully you'll learn not to make the same mistake again. Hopefully the mistake won't be one where you'll experience lifelong consequences. Hopefully, you'll recover....hopefully. I guess there are two ways to view this.
First is in a psylo. A mistake, in and of itself. You do something that results in a a bad feeling for you. So you think "Hmm....that was not so fun.". End. What good can come of this? Well, without this negative emotion following the mistake, we would never associate bad feelings with this purportedly bad action. So I guess that's a positive, right? Associating bad feelings with bad actions will (we hope) prevent you from participating in these bad actions again...thus avoiding the bad feelings.
The second way to view a mistake would be to analyze the cumulative effect of many mistakes on your persona. The cumulative effects of multiple instances of associating bad feelings with purportedly bad actions. I would imagine that this affects a person in a restrictive way.
Since a mistake prevents a particular, purportedly bad, behavior, a series of mistakes prevents many, purportedly bad, behaviors. So the end result is that a person avoids many of these behaviors. Now lets apply this to the ever changing dynamic of life. Since mistakes don't cause a person to behave in a different way, but rather cause a person to not behave in a particular way, how do we know that the avoidance of that, purportedly bad, behavior will always be good? For instance, let me use the worst possible example I can think of. One of those snipers that was running around in Atlanta a few years ago points a gun at a crowded bus from afar. He shoots and kills an innocent person. He gets caught and put in jail. "You're a bad man" they tell him. "Bad bad bad". So he thinks "I better not do that again when I get out of the slammer. If I do, I'll get put back in the slammer and get all these bad feelings again. I made a mistake by thinking that shooting my rifle at a bus full of innocent people was okay." So one day he gets out of jail and he is avoiding shooting a rifle at a crowded bus. One day he spots a crowded bus from afar, full of terrorist suicide bombers, all with those dynamite vest things strapped to them, driving full speed towards a building full of innocent people. He just happens to have a rifle on him because...well...he's a sniper. "Should I pull out my gun and shoot?" he thinks. Having previously associated bad feelings with this, purportedly bad, act, he avoids taking out the rifle and the worst case scenario takes place. Little does he know that criminal law provides "defense of others", as a complete defense against manslaughter charges.
This is, of course, a ridiculous example. However, the point I'm trying to make is that while the cumulative effect of mistakes on the psyche are restrictive in the strictest sense, their resulting effect on behavior may not always be a good thing. There are situations when a person has to look back on their life and reassess the lessons they learned in the past against new situations.
