Nothing Has Meaning

Les Paul died today.

I’m crying…

Perry Marshall’s Renaissance Club recently did a piece on, tired of losing the game? Change the game, sort of like if you don’t like the rules of the game, change the game. Which got me thinking, there is no game, no just kidding, well, there isn’t, but I think that is not quite a practical reality that bears discussion here at this point in time.

So I was thinking about rules, and I’ve talked about law a little already, but here I mean rules of the game in the context Perry was using it, rules of the arena in which one operates. For example, being polite in social situations is required by the rules. Perry was using the metaphor to refer to business, or a niche market, here I want to expand on the idea of rules of the game into the restrictions we place upon ourselves individually and as a group.

Backing up a bit, freedom is complete release from responsiblity and complete autonomy to do anything. Animals are truly free. They do what they want, whatever, whatever. Rules reign in and restrict freedom to the norms established by society. This is called law in many cases, and in many cases is not enforced, but just having the rules seems to give one a sense of security.

So the rules of the game, restrict and reduce freedom. This is what lawmakers do, reduce freedom. Usually they do this in a “big brother” “I know what’s best for the little people beneath me” attitude, here in the US anyway. So the desire to be a politician has its roots in a desire to restrict the freedom of others, the desire to dictate to others, and the desire to benefit society as a whole by doing thus. Problem is, it rarely works out that way.

I toyed with the idea of a politician who is the anti-politician, entering the realm of reducing freedom but instead making his or her platform one of “I am cleaning out all the old bad rules”. In other words, promising not to make any more rules, but instead, to get rid of the junk. Interesting thought that.

The rules of the game create the framework of operation within which we all operate, if we choose to participate, and even if we choose not to participate. Can we really change the rules of the game? The answer is a resounding yes, we can make them better, we can rid ourselves of bad rules, and we can make game changing modifications to our societies.

Will we? No…

Happy Birthday Kai!

Remember this?

Kai with a Bucket on His Head

And here’s a shot of you, Asako and Judy’s in the background, at Yosemite, when you were 2 years old.

Kai Digs the River

Kai’s Birthday is July 20 exactly 7 days after mine!

Happy birthday to Cheech Marin, and of course Harrison Ford.

You say it’s your birthday?

Well, it’s my birthday too yeah…

Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.  

Sound familiar? Did I mention my middle name is Aristotle?

Ok, admittedly I’m not as eloquent, but I do talk about we are what we do.

I’ve talked a lot about perspective here. This is what creates the “without point of view” half of Nothing Has Meaning.

I wanted to put the Declaration of Independence in just a little more perspective.

These 56 signers were elected officials of the English Colonies. The signing of the Declaration of Independence was an act of treason against the English Government punishable by death.

We do well to remember that. These men were each and every one of them extraordinary. I’m reading more about each of them, and it’s inspiring. We aren’t talking about “great” achievers necessarily, but their lives included one of the greatest acts of righteousness and bravery, which makes them extraordinary in and of itself.

The story behind the Declaration of Independence, and the events leading to the Declaration of Independence are also very interesting.

Would but that we as a People could all evince such extraordinary behavior…

Have you ever noticed that the rules we make, whatever the motive, are rarely followed, or enforced at random to benefit a few?

Take for example, micro-corporations, in the State of California. I’m using micro-corporations for discussion because I have found that they are a microcosm of bigger entities, such as "democracies" like the United States of America. Let’s discuss a fictitious membership nonprofit membership corporation model because this article is about participatory governing bodies, not profit businesses.

I’ve seen a few, and I’m always flabbergasted at how apathetic the Directors are (meet 6 to 12 times a year, do nothing in between meetings, say aye, go home…), how small the membership (also apathetic) and how disingenuous most of the "corporate activities" are, or how few members the activities benefit. And a serious number of these types of organizations are way past their prime and dying on the vine.

In essence, some are shill fronts for a few people’s efforts to get free money, jobs, leftover useless corps, or simply power over others for the thrill that gives some evidently.

Let’s say our discussion corp was formed to protect and serve the rights and privileges of a group of people, administer CCRs (covenants, conditions and restrictions) and it has a charter thus written and a set of bylaws.

Here’s what one would assume this corporation would do: protect the rights and privileges of its members and enforce the CCRs. What will typically happen in actuality is….nothing, or very little. What if the CCRs then expire? Wouldn’t that surely spell the end of the corp? Not necessarily. If someone benefits from the carcass of the dying corp, yep, it lingers on, and the apathy of the membership likely means there is no end in sight.

As is typical of membership corporations, the bylaws are usually made to protect the members, giving them control of the corporation they own. One way they do that is to require that at least a majority of the members (half plus one) be present at any membership meeting that conducts business, holds elections and etc. This prevents one or two people from controlling the corporation. However, as stated above, apathy kills that from actually being prevented, it happens anyway.

Now what if the membership grows and meetings are regularly held without a half plus one quorum present due to apathy? Only a handful of people now control the corporation, because they will not follow the rules.

Doesn’t it then stand to reason the corporation’s reason to be is over?  That in essence the corporation is not serving the interests of the members as they are non-participants? Probably. And maybe not depending on the controlling few.

But what if they keep on going anyway? What if a couple people gain from this? What if it is in their interests to just keep on perpetuating this no longer needed corporation? What if they hold elections without a quorum take nominations from the floor and elect Directors not lawfully elected therefore? Rules mean nothing, proving my point.

And yes, the corp never dies, and never really is effective, though may manage to "serve" the members in some manner.

Apathy causes this to happen, and the members of this fictitious corporation would have only themselves to blame. The reality is that in all likelihood it’s more trouble than it’s worth to end it, depending on the size of the corp, the damage to the members, the loss. If the cost of status quo perpetuation is low, apathy wins, principle loses. However, simply following the rules would end it rather painlessly as no elections could ever take place due to a lack of a quorum.

I sometimes wonder what there is to combat apathy other than pain, and I realize the answer is again…nothing. Enough pain, and action is inevitable.

The micro-corporate microcosm of "democracy" is but a symptom of a greater ill, the apathetic masses.

Bring on the pain…and hopefully spur action.

Have you ever noticed how some people are simply brokers of ill will? They always manipulate and polarize those around them. They do this for their own benefit, and typically polarize, manipulate and pit against one another the people from whom they directly benefit.

Reminds me of the killer in Agatha Christie’s Curtain, Hercule Poirot’s final appearance.

The killer in Curtain didn’t actually kill anyone. In fact, Poirot wound up killing the killer and then killing himself leaving behind an explanation because he saw no other way to stop this killer lawfully, as there was no crime under the law in the story, and under most laws.

This killer was a broker of ill will. He would psychologically manipulate others into committing murder, even against the dear and near. He would do this maliciously for no apparent reason other than satisfaction of creating and spreading his malice.

Brokers of, and in, ill will seem to be mean spirited people, not entirely without merit as is common among human beings, but simply bent on achieving what I can only assume is the satisfaction of creating and preserving chasms between people, factions pitted against one another, usually so the broker feels benefited in some way.

There are varying degrees of this affliction as well. In some cases, it’s more of a bad character trait, a part of the whole, than it is their entire identity. In these cases you’ll only see the manifestation of the affliction intermittently while some are just constant downers. The really evil ones do it without you even knowing it’s happening, then suddenly, we see people behaving in unprecedented ways.

Brokering ill will has its roots in pure malice, and some appear to do it to preserve a perceived self interest on their part, to prevent what they think would be a catastrophic change from the status quo.

Brokering ill will stems from fear. Fear of the truth being known and thus causing some sort of damage to the fearful party. The truth is so feared in some quarters that life is a pitiful and painful existence.

In fact, most evil comes from fear. Fear is probably the real root of all bizarre and uniquely human evil behavior. It’s that ill juxtaposition of animal behavior and higher human intelligence.

So what can we do about these brokers of ill will?  You can only change you so all you have to do is not allow these brokers to manipulate your thinking, your feeling, your understanding.

The bottom line is that our minds are windows, the window we look through, and any time you allow another person to influence your mind, without careful consideration and self referral on your part, you’ve given away a part of yourself and made that part of yourself something foreign, essentially into what the manipulator wanted.

Really, your mind is your universe, and the content of your mind is yours to mold. Why let others make you into something you are not?

Seize your mind and think for yourself.