W+K Studio has designed and asks for your donations in exchange for a “Help Japan” poster. Minimum donation is $25. 100% will go to the earthquake and tsunami relief.

“Conventional wisdoms always and inevitably produce conventional results. This means that if you perceive some problem or opportunity in a conventional way (just because that’s the way your mind works), you will come up with a conventional solution. But high performance, real achievement, is far from being the norm, far from being “conventional.” So the implication is that if you want to achieve extraordinary results, results that are not more or less “average,” then you have to produce those results out of some fairly unconventional wisdoms. … [Often such] perspectives … are counter-intuitive. That is, they run contrary to what most people already believe… always and inevitably …”

What unconventional way(s) could we think through this idea that would lead us to a better, more beneficial way of thinking? What Thayer seems to be saying is that the more conventional your thinking, the more conventional the results will be by virtue of your being limited by the conventional ideas which you use. That is, if you seek change in your organization, and since it comes from the thinkers you have available to you (your “resources”), you best make sure that the wisdoms you are drawing off of are potent enough to lead your thinking in the direction of that desired change. However, if the members of your organization are bounded by a “conventional” way of thinking, then that change itself will be “conventional.” We are limited by our thinking capacities.

Extraordinary (extra-ordinary) results come from one’s ability to think in ways that are not ordinary (conventional). The richer your mind, the richer the results of your thinking. If the stream of thinking in your or your competitor’s organization flows unchecked, then it will be that unchecked flow that will end up drowning your competitive edge. Thinking and questioning in counter-intuitive ways, having capable minds on hand will, on the other hand, provide critical power to your organization’s culture. Perhaps questioning conventionality and the conventions of your organization is the first step toward counter-intuitive problem solving?

In this light, it would seem that questions and the ability to be a superior questioner, in light of your purpose and your ideals (the ideals of your organization), would be a most beneficial skill to develop (is there a more “unconventional” approach that I am overlooking?). That, and perhaps, developing the ability to decipher the useful and provocative wisdoms from the run-of-the-mill ideas that get pushed by the mass business press.

Where would you look for the resources needed to become a skillful unconventional thinker? How does one begin to develop ab-normal strategies for high performance? What thinkers have colonized and influenced your (or your organization’s) mind? Where have they led you thus far? Can one be such a risk-taker in a conventionally-minded organization? What are the risks?

Looking at the first two statements I would ask, what are some differences between what people can figure out (what they are capable of figuring out) and what they “need” to know? Is what you need to know dependent upon what you are trying to know? How capable am I (or, are you) of figuring out what you need to know? Are we, as humans, perpetually stuck in the condition of forever being limited by our own capacities for knowing?

Advice: Is most advice sought because one doesn’t know what one needs to know or doesn’t know where to look so looks to someone else for help? What should one do to maximize the quality of the advice that one gives/receives? Which leads us to the paradox that Thayer suggests: “If you know the difference between good advice and bad advice, you don’t need advice.” What this suggests to me is that it all comes down to your capacity for filtering out what is relevant to your purpose and reason for knowing. That is, if you can recognize good advice from bad advice, then you probably don’t need advice. Is that what Thayer is saying?

Would the capacity to be able to distinguish good from bad advice somehow help one in their competency to be able to better figure out what they are capable of figuring out, thus leading them closer to where they should be?

Perhaps, if you have the ability to distinguish what advice is good/bad for you, then you needn’t seek. In other words, the building of the capacity to distinguish the two, in itself, becomes useful in terms of figuring out what you need to know. Where would you start exercising this capacity? In asking yourself for advice?

To further explore: If a person wants to take a job for a certain company, but, in fearing he doesn’t know everything he should know about that company, seeks advice from others, and then, in hearing the advice rejects the advice, did he actually need the advice in the first place? What benefit was the advice that he received? Had he already decided before even hearing the advice?

In his book “Leaders and Leadership: Searching for Wisdom in all the Right Places,” Lee Thayer writes, “Relationships are necessary. You can’t be anyone without first auditioning in front of others. But the influence goes both ways. Other people want you to be who they want you to be. If that is consistent with what you intend to be, then consider yourself the most fortunate person on earth and move on.”

If this is so, then problems most definitely arise when two people are at odds with who they want the other to be in their eyes. In these cases, how do we navigate each other away from the problem? If I want you to acquiesce to my way of seeing things and you want me to acquiesce to your way of seeing things, then we will have a problem. Is the solution simply a matter of one person acquiescing to the other? Or, is this a mis-diagnosis of the problem? Will the fundamental difference (the, perhaps, stubbornness) go away or increase in the changing of oneself?

Relationships between couples seem to be a good example. If one of us wants to go north and the other south and both have compelling reasons for wanting to go their respective ways, then how do we as a couple solve this problem without ending the relationship? How do we compromise? And, say one goes north with the other, getting his/her way, but then becomes adverse to the decision thus blaming the other for proliferating a mood of negativity, it would seem that both lose this game. How could the two resolve this problem? Again, is there something more fundamental that the two are not seeing?

If the couple intends to be together, yet suffers such problems of who the other is (diverging views of each other) then would that mean that they ought to redefine the relationship and their purposes for being together? Other than either redefining each other or acquiescing to one or the other (deferring), what other possible solutions are at hand?

Do relationships fail on the basis of bad performances? Are the most fortunate relationships those who are sharing purposeful performances?

I have begun teaching Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451″ to my ninth grade high school students. It is interesting teaching this book realizing that all of the students in the room (from varying international backgrounds) have been raised with more advanced and “faster” communication technologies than I could have dreamed of when I was their age. Granted I am not that “old,” but do remember the day when a large satellite television dish was planted in what used to be a garden in our yard. The black monolith, which connected me with other virtual worlds, which greatly shaped my imaginative development.

It is difficult for some of them to relate to the overarching themes of a society obsessed with amusement and speed. Could this be due to the ways in which technology and amusements have already infiltrated their minds? And, am I, as their “teacher,” immune from the consequences of an over reliance on the various gadgets that make my life easier? Should the role of the teacher of a book like “Fahrenheit 451″ be one who has become like the character Clarisse, “insane” to the eyes of an out-of-control society as described in the book? If so, wouldn’t, in the teaching of this book, it make more sense to conduct the class while sitting on grass, away from the technological pull of the city? More importantly, does this book resonate with the students in the ways in which Bradbury intended? What kind of student would it take to “take arms against a sea of amusements (Postman)”? What kind of research would be most applicable? What kinds of secondary texts would fill in the gaps?

In order for this book to achieve its own purposes as a so-called “novel of ideas,” it would seem necessary to me to foster an inquisitive classroom environment from which students could gain the capacity to critically and curiously question the technological devices and media influences in their lives that they are exposed to and that they expose themselves to on an hourly basis. The development of these capacities would be for the purpose of having them re-experience those devices and interfaces that shape the virtual landscapes of planet “my life.” What questions would one need to ask to enable students to ask the right questions to themselves about their connections to technology and what that technology could mean? Would this way of teaching (inquistive) make for the proper atmosphere of presenting the novel’s ideas?

At the end of a few lessons, I began thinking about how this book will influence and hopefully develop their ability to examine contemporary culture. For example, the character Clarisse says, “I sometimes think drivers don’t know what grass is, or flowers, because they never see them slowly.” This observation, which I felt captured a potent insight into culture didn’t seem to resonate with students, even though our location (Beijing) is a city of vehicles, an overpopulation of vehicles. None of the students walk to and from school and judging from their reactions to the idea of “walking for pleasure,” none of them see walking for the sake of walking as a choice by which one’s experience of the world and how one perceives it is enhanced as having any relevance to them whatsoever.

Other than actually taking them on a walk, how does one open up this idea and make it relevant? How can we teach students to regain the simplicity of life if they don’t want to learn it?

Thank you for reading. I hope that this edited yet stream-of-consciousness “think piece” is of use to you.

Michael Wade over at Execupundit recently posted two provocative questions under the title, “Indirect Path.” His two questions are as follows, “Is happiness something that is captured or achieved?” and “Or is it more likely that happiness will climb our steps when we are not in active pursuit?”

What I would like to do here is to simply open up these questions and in doing so hopefully give readers of this blog and his, some food for thought in the contemplation of these matters.

First, if happiness is something that is “captured,” from where do we capture it? How does one “find” it? Could it even be possible that happiness exists apart from our attitudes toward what we do and how we experience life? Or, does one, as Herzog might say, “wrestle it from the Devil’s hands?” If happiness is achieved, then what does that tell us about such things as perseverance, effort, accountability and responsibility? Could it be that the pursuit of these leads one to a “happier” life because they align one with one’s purpose? How caught up are happiness and purpose?

And, to address Wade’s second question, does the direct contemplation of happiness somehow eliminate its manifestation? Any student of David K. Reynolds’ “Constructive Living” should be familiar with the adage that one cannot will oneself to be happy. Or, is it that happiness is a performable feeling that one can actually will into existence by the performance of that feeling? Also, does the direct desire to be “happy” have any meaning whatsoever? Is there a state of happiness apart from one’s own unique life circumstance in which that term “happiness” takes on whatever relevance it may have to that person in that circumstance? How has your understanding of happiness changed over the years? Is it the happiness that changed or your own changes in how you interpret things?

Additionally, how is happiness discussed through mediums such as television, radio, film, books and the Internet? Which medium would be most useful a platform for learning more about what happiness could be and how it manifests itself in our lives? Which “stories” that you may live by most influence your understanding of happiness? Does it matter which story we use as long as it “works” for us?

Somehow, for me, in the thinking of these questions, some kind of internal calm overcomes me and I daresay I feel…happiness? I’m not sure. Perhaps this tells us something. But what? Is it that the right questions somehow guide us closer to a more lucid understanding? But without a purpose in mind how do we know what to ask? Why is happiness so sought after?

Here are 10 general mindfulness exercises for when you are working.

1. Engage yourself in your work as if your job depends on it.

2. Become the best at what you do, not the best at gabbing around the office.

3. If you finish a project early, review your work and look for ways to improve upon it.

4. A big project is filled with small tasks, which may seem menial and/or tedious, but remember that the large project can only come together through the doing of the small tasks. Do them well.

5. Learn from your co-workers by asking the right questions.

6. If you are becoming overwhelmed by your workload, consider coming to work early. A quiet office very early in the morning can be quite refreshing and may be a nurturing atmosphere for productivity.

7. An afternoon walk outside may provide a solution to that problem you are trying to work out and the stimuli may help, too.

8. Build your work competencies daily by asking questions and learning as much as you can about your current position.

9. The better you are at what you do, the more meaningful your work will be.

10. From CL wisdom, “Do the NOW well.”

——

Please help me expand this list. What techniques for mindful working work for you?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mindfulness training busts stress (cnn.com)
• The Practice of Mindfulness (digitaldoorway.blogspot.com)
• Mindfulness Meditation (realnutritionsupplement.blogspot.com)

The Bakuon Film Festival began over the weekend. The premise of this festival is simple and evident from the 12-foot high speakers stacked on both sides of the screen: Maximum Audio Blast! I had the good fortune of seeing David Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive” and Quentin Tarantino’s “Death Proof” last night and was not disappointed. I had never thought of Lynch as a musician, but after last night’s showing, it was his role as “sound designer” that really took precedence over the visuals of the film. He has stated before that his films are meant to be seen on a big screen and I would add, with a crisp and able sound system. The sub-atomic bass that he mixes into so many scenes was really brought out last night’s screening and was equal to any “noise” show that I have attended.

On the other hand, Tarantino’s soundtrack selection, as is often praised (even by himself when he said, “I have one of the best soundtrack collections in America.”), was warm beyond belief. The lapdance scene’s version of The Coaster’s “Down in Mexico” was a vinyl version of the song, as opposed to the CD version (an updated version), which is included on the DVD and the soundtrack. We all know vinyl sounds good, but coupled with Tarantino’s sharp cinematography (credited as writer/director and Director of Photography), this movie, too, took on a new life. Oh, yes, the cars were damn loud.

I couldn’t stay for Dario Argento’s cut of “Zombi,” but hopefully can catch it this week. If you are in or near Kichijoji, make your way to the Baus Theater and check out the Bakuon Film Festival. No previews. Huge audio. The 2am presentation of Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” definitely seems worth checking out.

The official website: Bakuon Film Festival

From Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “A Study in Scarlet”:

“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend up it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.” – Sherlock Holmes

On his philosophy of filmmaking: “I really think music and movement — dance, you know — and literature inform my visuals. I think film is also based in dance. The relationship between me, the camera and the actor is always a dance.” These words come from this article, which has many interesting and informative words from Doyle on his craft and way of working/thinking.” – Christopher Doyle

Wong Kar-Wai’s “In the Mood for Love” spoke to me in this way even before I knew who the cinematographer behind the lens was. The narrative, sound and movement blend together with such precision and elegance. Had someone else shot this film, it would have been a completely different film. Such is the case with all films. It makes all the difference who shoots it.

Questions for Readers
What great films, for you, have the dance-like quality, which Doyle talks about?
Can you suggest (and share) other relevant quotations, which might enhance this perspective of filmmaking?
What cinematographers move you?

Here are two trailers featuring Doyle’s work: Wong Kar-Wai’s “In the Mood for Love” and Jim Jarmusch’s “The Limits of Control,” respectively.

I’ve been living in Tokyo for two months now. This is my first update since the move. I relocated from a quiet “bed town” in Ibaraki to a beautiful neighborhood close to Shinjuku. While my neighborhood in Tokyo is relatively quiet, I miss the dead-of-night stillness that comes from being in the countryside. I grew up in northern Michigan, so I am quite close to that quietude. It is odd to experience stillness in the midst of a metropolis like Tokyo, and for me, the experience is very different from that of the stillness in the country: being surrounded by open sky and dark woods as opposed to being surrounded by tiny streets, high-rise apartment buildings and cherry blossom trees. Being a fan of horror films, both of these experiences of stillness can be frightening, although the stillness of the woods is a fright closer to my heart. That makes the stillness of the city at night more frightening. The Unexpected can be conjured in both situations, but seems like a wholly different breed to unexpected fright. Are these both symptoms of a fear of what could be lurking around the corner? How do the two different landscapes affect the use and play of shadows?

What I like about the dark nights of the city is the sound of wailing voices coming from the street at night, the frightful chill of an unknown voice and then, upon looking out the window, realizing its only a drunken business man howling because he burnt his “manhood” with his cigarette while trying to urinate on the sidewalk. Now, that’s scary.

Not all of us are as good at improvising as director/writer/comedian, Larry Charles (Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Borat, Religulous). Maybe we can learn to develop that capacity for improvisation.

In this short video, he briefly opens up the idea of “cracking the code” for a piece of art (in his case, film/TV). I admire his story of walking with Larry David and allowing the thoughts to kind of “bubble up,” – stream of consciousness. It seems that some of our greatest ideas can come not when we are sitting down at our desk, thinking hard, but when we are in route, on a walk, or alone in those “in-between” moments of life. This is not to say that planned “thinking sessions” may be productive and useful, but that we should (might want to) learn to develop the skill of thinking, even in those routine moments of life.

In the coming weeks I will try to further flesh out this idea and apply it to a television program or film. Of course, I will share the results with you here.

What is the “code” for the trajectory of our own life?
Should we be merely studying “about” the code or “how to” create the code?
Is this something that one should “study” or something that one should “live out?”

Perplexed as always.

“The most important tribute any human being can pay to a poem or a piece of prose he or she really loves is to learn it by heart. Not by brain, by heart; the expression is vital.” – George Steiner

Questions:
What are the differences between learning by heart and learning by brain?
How do those differences (heart vs. brain) shift or enhance the learning experience?
How can we develop the competencies which would enable us to deepen our learning?
How can we develop the competencies which would increase our capacity for vitalized expression?
Why is the expression “vital?”

Could we use this term to include the potential misuse or disadvantageously habitual ways of taking the world into account?

It seems that if we got those ways in which we grasp and are grasped by the world, right, then things like overeating or not getting enough exercise would not have to be dealt with. They simply wouldn’t exist for the person who had a different way of understanding (and doing something with) the prevalence of habits. A firm foundation, a firm understanding of the ubiquity of habits, taken firmly into account, may be just the kind of change that would be needed for someone looking to improve other parts of his or her life (overeating).

What do you think? Am I caught up in my own lifestyle-related dis-ease by wanting to bring this concept under a different light? Is thinking a habit that can be developed? If so, how do we become better thinkers? Is being stuck in a certain way of thinking, itself, a kind of “bad habit?”

Eyeslit-Crypt favorite, Ken Tanaka, has made a new video in which he encounters a seemingly random Japanese woman while out for a stroll in Little Tokyo. The woman that Ken meets turns out to be Los Angeles based artist Mari Araki. The video shows stills of some of her magnificent pieces as they talk about rabbits, art, life and latex. Break out the whips.

It’s amazing how sometimes we can jump so far ahead of ourselves that we ignore some small yet crucial detail or task, necessary to the successful and mistake-free completion of a project or task. Even as I am writing this, as the words keep appearing, I am, in a sense, rushing (now revising). Maybe you can sense that. We tend to live in a world of varying degrees of speed (as Thayer reminded us in “Reach vs. Grasp”). Sometimes productivity can overwhelm us. Sometimes being too productive can cloud over the value of slow and effortful doing. Perhaps productivity folds back in on itself. Sometimes faster is not always better, only faster. If, as the cliche goes, “time is money,” then we should make sure that we are wisely investing our time. This does not mean engaging in “impulse buys,” but, more crucially, in well-thought-out decisions (purchases) and purposeful doing. It’s the difference between eating fast-food as opposed to eating fresh fruit. There are big differences in the outcomes of this seemingly brainless choice.

Wade points us to a simple yet, in my opinion, valuable, look at this controllable way of thinking and doing. Our TV game shows like to challenge us by testing how quickly we can answer questions. The person who is the fastest gets to reply. If, in that situation, we are fast and able to correctly answer the question, we may walk away with a cash prize. Nonetheless, our daily lives are much different than that. While speedy responses and speedy completion of projects may show us to be valuable employees on the surface, what if the haste of our doing results in some simple yet overlooked mistake? Do we still get “the prize?” What if that email lacked some important piece of information? Why kick yourself later when you had the choice to revise? Overlooking something can be corrected if we just slow down. Is tackling a project with speed and tackling a project with purpose different? If so, how so? Can a quick reply be a well-thought out reply? Perhaps, but not for me.

Sometimes we become speed and sometimes we become slow. How does this way of thinking change or improve our ways of doing? Does it matter?

I haven’t spent much time with Demetri Martin’s comedy material, but through some great stroke of serendipity, stumbled across this hour-long special for the BBC, entitled “If I.” To my delight, this performance is not simply “stand-up,” but examines such things as communication, choices, life-making, creativity, meaning and thinking. Martin unpacks the word “if” and uses it to point us in the direction of how our lives are influenced by our choices and the power of imagining our lives through the “if.”

While watching this video, I couldn’t help but be drawn back to Lee Thayer when he wrote, “…there is no dynamic in what ‘is.’ What stirs the human mind to life is not what ‘is,’ but what could be, or what should be, or what might be (from “Pieces”).”

In addition, Martin uses original artwork, music and photography to help pull us into “his” world. He is a brilliant public speaker and I hope you can use this video (and the other five, which can be found on Youtube) to enhance your life in some meaningful and constructive way.

“HAVING NO ALIBI: The most important words you need to hear, only you can say. Too many things are left unsaid by those who forget that they themselves need to say them.” – Dr. Corey Anton

According to the WME website:

“Communication! begins with a half-dozen “Forewarnings,” such as # 2:

“For the most part our … perspectives on communication treat it as a means to more or less immediate ends. This is okay, because we can use communication in that limited way. But it trivializes our understanding of what’s really at stake. … Communication is the creator and the infrastructure of every human mind, and thus of the worlds we create ….”

The book closes, in “Performing Life,” with:

“It makes a difference what you call things — and why. We humans are made of meanings. Get those right and you get the rest of it right.

“To understand at the deepest level that life is a performing art may be the best way ….”

In between, Lee Thayer’s essays take us on a 20-stop tour of the world of life-making and meaning-making. His provocative ideas on “communication competencies” offer new ways to “influence people … [and] be influenced by the world in ways presently not open to you” and, ultimately, to “a richer, more meaningful, more mindful life ….”

WME has also published Thayer’s “Leadership: Thinking, Being, Doing” and “How Executives Fail.” I highly recommend both of these for anyone looking to improve their personal performance or the performance of their organization.

Finally, from the above linked WME website, a PDF sample of “Communication!” is currently available for download. If you are looking to get a taste of Thayer’s work, spending some quality time with this free PDF should serve as a great point of entry into his way of thinking and stimulate your own thinking appetite.

In closing, remember: “As you communicate, so shall you be.” – Thayer

Here is a translation that I made this evening from a Japanese Constructive Living website. The topic is a dark one that is a persistent problem in Japan: “bullying.”

Here is my translation:

Bullying

Bullying has occurred in every time period. So, it probably won’t go away from now, either. It is a problem not only for children, but for adults, as well. Solving this problem is not simple, but strengthening the family bond with one’s family is a necessary first step. The Spring/Autumn edition of the Nikkei newspaper talks about the connection between bullying, suicide, and mistreatment. One third of parents who were treated badly when they were children, mistreat their own children. Another one-third, mistreat their children as a way to deal with their jobs or their stress. When we put these figures together, we see that these two-thirds are going to inherit the world we now live in.