It happens far more than I'd like to admit. These lengthy dry spells without a single word written. I've appreciated this blog as an outlet, to sit and type - whatever comes out of it usually ends up surprising me as well as tangent leads to tangent and suddenly I've realized something completely new and different, about myself, about the topic, about anything. It has always amazed me where my stream of consciousness takes me, and I am thankful to have this forum to do so.
It just doesn't work as well when I don't use it. Or, as has been the case over the past few weeks, I start writing something but don't finish it. Or I reconsider it. Or end up rereading it after grabbing another cup of coffee only to realize it's absolutely ridiculous. It happens. But I also have been away from this ol' computer too long lately.
And admittedly even I was getting bored with the Multiple Intelligence video idea. So there's that.
But this absence has helped me realize how much I do enjoy writing and getting out of my head. As though it gives me a sense of purpose, a form of simple enjoyment. I suppose writing is my hobby, just more intermittent than I'd like. I suppose that starts with me though. Carving out the time to sit down and put pen to paper. Not making a big deal of it - I think we all know those times when something we do becomes something we "have" to do, and in the end the prep work we tell ourselves is required becomes more consuming than the actual at itself and inevitably nothing gets done. "I'll do it tomorrow". Heck, I just told myself that not half an hour ago. But why wait? And perhaps I'll end up writing tomorrow as well. But that's tomorrow. I'll worry about that then. How's it go? "Yesterday is history, tomorrow's a mystery, today's a gift. That's why it's called the present." Perhaps paraphrased, and cheesy as heck, but a fair sentiment nonetheless.
So it's time to get back on track!
(Hopefully)
Showing posts with label Purpose. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Purpose. Show all posts
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Daily Purpose
A post I've been rolling around in my head for the past several months. I meant to put pen to paper on this topic - reflecting on purpose, identity, and raison d'etre - for months now, though admittedly I'm glad I've procrastinated this long as I've come to a few new insights.
It's interesting to me the generational differences (and industry differences) in relative perspective at work. No longer is "live to work" the reigning paradigm. Us youngsters generally carry more of a "work to live" mentality, where rather than define ourselves by what we do for a living, but what we do with that living. I tried to take this at face value after leaving my old position and beginning at a tool and die shop for the interim. I argued that it wasn't what I was doing in the hours I punched the clock, but what I was doing the other 118 hours of the week that mattered more. And so I continued, grateful simply for a job to pay the bills, a luxury not available to everyone.
So with my safety and security needs met (Maslow; to be continued), I found myself looking for more. Looking back, with the perspective afforded through 20/20 hindsight, I better see the pros and cons of my previous life, chronicled a bit more in my previous post (found here), and I find myself missing that satisfaction that comes with personally meaningful outcomes. And it is only from this detour that I can see that picture more clearly.
Several months ago I was able to sit down with a company's OD personnel, to talk and network, to glean some insights on breaking into the field. One of the biggest things I took away from that meeting was the metaphor she used when explaining how her son did mazes: he would find the dead-ends first and black them out, ruling out false leads and misdirection, until, eventually, only the way through was left. It seems so simple, and yet so poignant. By figuring out what doesn't work, one can better find their path. Of course this isn't a quick fix. And applying it personally has yielded some interesting, albeit at times uncomfortable realizations.
It is with all this (and always so much more that can't possibly be put into words) in mind that I find myself needing to find purpose once again. "Work to live", I believe, has more connotations than just defining yourself by what you do off the clock (and before I forget I should mention that such generalizations are clearly not true for everyone. Just wanted to throw that out there for completion sake). I think it also is a reversal of defining ourselves by our jobs, instead finding meaningful work defined by who we are personally. I think we've shifted away from finding a position and assuming that identity to recognizing our own identity and finding the work that embodies it. I'm thinking this may be a big reason my generation is over-educated and under-employed, because we've been, by and large, searching more for purpose and passion. For better or worse of course. And so I find myself unfortunately lumped into this cliched stereotype.
But we persevere. I am actively searching for this fulfillment, though tempering it with the realization that this is still the real world and such accomplishments as finding such a purpose will be neither easy nor quick. And, an aspect I fear is lost on many, just because I strive to succeed, because I put in the time, because I want it enough - there is no guarantee. That's life. So I continue to work on it. To think and reflect, and, most importantly, get up and do something about it. "Do or do not. There is no try". Thank you Yoda.
It's interesting to me the generational differences (and industry differences) in relative perspective at work. No longer is "live to work" the reigning paradigm. Us youngsters generally carry more of a "work to live" mentality, where rather than define ourselves by what we do for a living, but what we do with that living. I tried to take this at face value after leaving my old position and beginning at a tool and die shop for the interim. I argued that it wasn't what I was doing in the hours I punched the clock, but what I was doing the other 118 hours of the week that mattered more. And so I continued, grateful simply for a job to pay the bills, a luxury not available to everyone.
So with my safety and security needs met (Maslow; to be continued), I found myself looking for more. Looking back, with the perspective afforded through 20/20 hindsight, I better see the pros and cons of my previous life, chronicled a bit more in my previous post (found here), and I find myself missing that satisfaction that comes with personally meaningful outcomes. And it is only from this detour that I can see that picture more clearly.
Several months ago I was able to sit down with a company's OD personnel, to talk and network, to glean some insights on breaking into the field. One of the biggest things I took away from that meeting was the metaphor she used when explaining how her son did mazes: he would find the dead-ends first and black them out, ruling out false leads and misdirection, until, eventually, only the way through was left. It seems so simple, and yet so poignant. By figuring out what doesn't work, one can better find their path. Of course this isn't a quick fix. And applying it personally has yielded some interesting, albeit at times uncomfortable realizations.
It is with all this (and always so much more that can't possibly be put into words) in mind that I find myself needing to find purpose once again. "Work to live", I believe, has more connotations than just defining yourself by what you do off the clock (and before I forget I should mention that such generalizations are clearly not true for everyone. Just wanted to throw that out there for completion sake). I think it also is a reversal of defining ourselves by our jobs, instead finding meaningful work defined by who we are personally. I think we've shifted away from finding a position and assuming that identity to recognizing our own identity and finding the work that embodies it. I'm thinking this may be a big reason my generation is over-educated and under-employed, because we've been, by and large, searching more for purpose and passion. For better or worse of course. And so I find myself unfortunately lumped into this cliched stereotype.
But we persevere. I am actively searching for this fulfillment, though tempering it with the realization that this is still the real world and such accomplishments as finding such a purpose will be neither easy nor quick. And, an aspect I fear is lost on many, just because I strive to succeed, because I put in the time, because I want it enough - there is no guarantee. That's life. So I continue to work on it. To think and reflect, and, most importantly, get up and do something about it. "Do or do not. There is no try". Thank you Yoda.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Try it, change it, try it again...
The title of this post comes from a camp I've worked at, and it stands as one of their "Seven Qualities of a Collaborative Leader". This poem reminded me of it (and fittingly, as I'm currently reading Alice in Wonderland):
Of course, it's easy to wonder why in the world Alice would eat or drink anything she just found laying about in a strange place (that exact act, by the way, is in no way advocated!), though the point stands: unless you try something new, there's no way to think you'll change. I actually like to think the inverse as well: unless you change, you'll never try something new. And, either way, without trying something new - without taking a chance, without a new experience, without risk, without challenge, without stepping outside your comfort zone - there will be no change.
For better or worse.
But there's really only one way to find out, isn't there?
She drank from a bottle called DRINK ME
And up she grew so tall.
She ate from a plate called TASTE ME
and down she shrank so small.
And so she changed, while other folks
Never tried nothin' at all.-Shel Silverstein
Of course, it's easy to wonder why in the world Alice would eat or drink anything she just found laying about in a strange place (that exact act, by the way, is in no way advocated!), though the point stands: unless you try something new, there's no way to think you'll change. I actually like to think the inverse as well: unless you change, you'll never try something new. And, either way, without trying something new - without taking a chance, without a new experience, without risk, without challenge, without stepping outside your comfort zone - there will be no change.
For better or worse.
But there's really only one way to find out, isn't there?
Friday, February 22, 2013
Faith in Humanity
A "friend" on Facebook posted the other day about faith in humanity. He presents examples of some of the tragedies that have plagued mankind, including wars, genocide, and overall violence perpetrated by one person against another. He postulates aloud about how these man-made events have made some lose their faith in humanity, shaking some people so deeply as to lose hope. "With that in mind, to anyone who has lost their faith in humanity, I have only one thing to say: What kind of moron are you to have picked humanity as a place for your faith to begin with? Pick up a Bible, (insert expletive insult here)". This was followed by a comment from another, declaring that placing one's faith in humanity is the biggest mistake there is.
Now, I don't pretend to know everything there is to know, and I certainly don't assert any advanced ability to interpret religious works. I don't claim to have a better grasp on any religion than the next person, nor claim one faith as better than another.
That being said, and the Bible being the reference point within the original post, I felt compelled to point out a personal observation: isn't the New Testament heavily focused on forgiveness and charity? Isn't an incredible aspect of the Christian faith rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus, a man who reached out to those in need, who lent aid to many others of the time seen as undeserved? Aren't there reams of examples demonstrating that treating all with fairness and respect, of loving, protecting, and helping those around us is the key lesson? Heck, as one account reports, among Jesus' last words were "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." Again, focused on those that are here, with us, and around us.
It almost seems that faith in humanity was what brought about the events of the New Testament. Even the Old Testament alludes to this: after he murders his brother, Cain responds to God's question as to Abel's whereabouts with "Am I my brother's keeper?" which "offends against the Torah's ethic responsibility for one's kinsman and neighbor" (Berlin & Brettler, ed. The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, pg. 19).
And looking over human history, those that are honored have all contributed to mankind - indeed, placed their faith in humanity. Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Viktor Frankl (to name a few). These people live(d) for those around them, regardless of religious belief. It just seems to me that more important that beating someone over the head with Scripture is to reach out to them; rather than pointing a finger, they would lend a hand.
As the old anecdote goes, a man asks God, "Why do you allow all these bad things to happen to people? People are starving and fighting, they're hurting and killing each other, people are freezing at night without enough clothing or shelter, children are malnourished, and many don't have the basic necessities to survive tomorrow. Why do you let these things happen?" God simply looks at the man and responds,
"Why do you?"
Now, I don't pretend to know everything there is to know, and I certainly don't assert any advanced ability to interpret religious works. I don't claim to have a better grasp on any religion than the next person, nor claim one faith as better than another.
That being said, and the Bible being the reference point within the original post, I felt compelled to point out a personal observation: isn't the New Testament heavily focused on forgiveness and charity? Isn't an incredible aspect of the Christian faith rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus, a man who reached out to those in need, who lent aid to many others of the time seen as undeserved? Aren't there reams of examples demonstrating that treating all with fairness and respect, of loving, protecting, and helping those around us is the key lesson? Heck, as one account reports, among Jesus' last words were "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." Again, focused on those that are here, with us, and around us.
It almost seems that faith in humanity was what brought about the events of the New Testament. Even the Old Testament alludes to this: after he murders his brother, Cain responds to God's question as to Abel's whereabouts with "Am I my brother's keeper?" which "offends against the Torah's ethic responsibility for one's kinsman and neighbor" (Berlin & Brettler, ed. The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, pg. 19).
And looking over human history, those that are honored have all contributed to mankind - indeed, placed their faith in humanity. Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Viktor Frankl (to name a few). These people live(d) for those around them, regardless of religious belief. It just seems to me that more important that beating someone over the head with Scripture is to reach out to them; rather than pointing a finger, they would lend a hand.
As the old anecdote goes, a man asks God, "Why do you allow all these bad things to happen to people? People are starving and fighting, they're hurting and killing each other, people are freezing at night without enough clothing or shelter, children are malnourished, and many don't have the basic necessities to survive tomorrow. Why do you let these things happen?" God simply looks at the man and responds,
"Why do you?"
Monday, November 19, 2012
Disenchantment
To build off last week's post, I must admit that I find myself more and more disenchanted with our contemporary system. See, I've been working for the past several years as a team facilitator - I work with groups anywhere from elementary age through adult and corporate, and we work through a sequence of activities directed at any number of outcomes, most revolving around cooperation, communication, trust, and working together. And, after a few hours or a few days, I bid the group adieu and we go our separate ways, hoping that they picked up at least one or two things to apply back at school, home, or work that may help they resolve differences to continue to move forward.
But at at the same time I know that when they get home, they can flip on the TV and watch our politicians, so polarized by party that any semblance of cooperation or compromise is instantly shut down. Republicans who vote in favor of Democrat initiatives are shunned and vice versa. Congressmen and Senators end up losing their seats if they vote "wrong".
No longer does the primary focus seem to be the betterment and growth of America and her people.
It seems the primary focus of votes, campaigns, and activities are instead to prove how right your side is, and that the other side is wrong. Votes put before Congress are put on hold, a freeze that grips both Houses until either one side concedes or the idea is thrown out entirely. The important thing is to be a good and true conservative or liberal, not to act in the best interest of your constituents. Campaign ads this year proved an excellent example, as words such as "liberal" (from a Baldwin attack ad: "More liberal that Pelosi, too liberal for Wisconsin") or "conservative" ("Mark Neumann, conservative way before it was cool") are used as insults as well as compliments. Pay no attention to their track record, in no small part to a data phenomenon wherein bipartisan committees are only correct if their numbers are something you want to hear. A candidate this year somehow managed to both agree with the Congressional Budget Office when their numbers lined up with his campaign ideologies, then turn around and dismiss them as partisan when other numbers stopped helping his platform. The Government Accountability Office shrank form 5,000 to 3,200 after pointing out wasteful spending in Congress. Their reaction? Slash the GAO budget.
Some may say "well that's just how it's always been". And to some point, you're undoubtedly correct. And even if it's the way it's always been, why would we continue to allow Washington, Madison, and all the others slowly grind to a halt as parties become increasingly important? Wouldn't we the People want positive change, not partisan decisions taking account party over issue, to decide our direction? Why not try to change it?
And so it goes. Compromise becomes the greatest antagonist, spelling career demise for any foolish soul daring to undertake it. If this is the way American politics are headed and we choose to follow, I believe we deserve what we get.
But at at the same time I know that when they get home, they can flip on the TV and watch our politicians, so polarized by party that any semblance of cooperation or compromise is instantly shut down. Republicans who vote in favor of Democrat initiatives are shunned and vice versa. Congressmen and Senators end up losing their seats if they vote "wrong".
No longer does the primary focus seem to be the betterment and growth of America and her people.
It seems the primary focus of votes, campaigns, and activities are instead to prove how right your side is, and that the other side is wrong. Votes put before Congress are put on hold, a freeze that grips both Houses until either one side concedes or the idea is thrown out entirely. The important thing is to be a good and true conservative or liberal, not to act in the best interest of your constituents. Campaign ads this year proved an excellent example, as words such as "liberal" (from a Baldwin attack ad: "More liberal that Pelosi, too liberal for Wisconsin") or "conservative" ("Mark Neumann, conservative way before it was cool") are used as insults as well as compliments. Pay no attention to their track record, in no small part to a data phenomenon wherein bipartisan committees are only correct if their numbers are something you want to hear. A candidate this year somehow managed to both agree with the Congressional Budget Office when their numbers lined up with his campaign ideologies, then turn around and dismiss them as partisan when other numbers stopped helping his platform. The Government Accountability Office shrank form 5,000 to 3,200 after pointing out wasteful spending in Congress. Their reaction? Slash the GAO budget.
Some may say "well that's just how it's always been". And to some point, you're undoubtedly correct. And even if it's the way it's always been, why would we continue to allow Washington, Madison, and all the others slowly grind to a halt as parties become increasingly important? Wouldn't we the People want positive change, not partisan decisions taking account party over issue, to decide our direction? Why not try to change it?
And so it goes. Compromise becomes the greatest antagonist, spelling career demise for any foolish soul daring to undertake it. If this is the way American politics are headed and we choose to follow, I believe we deserve what we get.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Live to Work or Work to Live?
I was wondering today which was better.
On the one hand, to work to live, I've understood to be the credo of Millennials such as myself. In a departure from previous generations, the argument for working to live places life first, that a job is something tolerated as a necessity to fund social activities and leisure time. And this makes sense because after all, isn't there more to life than simply waking up in the morning and heading to a job which you, in all likelihood, can stand but don't particularly like? Shouldn't life be more focused on living, on our experiences, our adventures? By working to live, we no longer define ourselves by what we do. Although it's still often used as the answer to "So, what do you do?". A job, we argue, is something we do, not what we are. And by placing life as the priority, gives us a greater chance to explore who we are and how we matter. A job is just something that pays the bills.
On the flip side, however, living to work, we could make the argument that our career is exactly who we are. More time is spent working than anything else (sleep may edge it out here...) and who we are is defined by what we do everyday. To that end, to have the goal of living to work provides an intrinsic motivation to pursue your passions professionally. To engage in the very experiences others may only find on the weekends. To contribute to society in a meaningful way. To do the best job we can in the job we're in. To make a difference. Here the priority is on the work: the goal is live everyday doing something in a positive, meaningful way, recognizing the value in a days work, and making a difference at the end of the day.
I work as a challenge course facilitator, which means I have the opportunity to interact with hundreds of people every year, and I hope that by the end of our time together I have been able to help them learn something about themselves and those around them, even if they themselves don't recognize it. And that gives me great joy and pride in my work, to the point where I may just argue that I live to work. But it's still only a part of who I am...
So is one better than another? Alas, I don't have the answer.
Of course, knowing my penchant for revisiting previous posts, I'm sure I'll have a follow up before too long.
On the one hand, to work to live, I've understood to be the credo of Millennials such as myself. In a departure from previous generations, the argument for working to live places life first, that a job is something tolerated as a necessity to fund social activities and leisure time. And this makes sense because after all, isn't there more to life than simply waking up in the morning and heading to a job which you, in all likelihood, can stand but don't particularly like? Shouldn't life be more focused on living, on our experiences, our adventures? By working to live, we no longer define ourselves by what we do. Although it's still often used as the answer to "So, what do you do?". A job, we argue, is something we do, not what we are. And by placing life as the priority, gives us a greater chance to explore who we are and how we matter. A job is just something that pays the bills.
On the flip side, however, living to work, we could make the argument that our career is exactly who we are. More time is spent working than anything else (sleep may edge it out here...) and who we are is defined by what we do everyday. To that end, to have the goal of living to work provides an intrinsic motivation to pursue your passions professionally. To engage in the very experiences others may only find on the weekends. To contribute to society in a meaningful way. To do the best job we can in the job we're in. To make a difference. Here the priority is on the work: the goal is live everyday doing something in a positive, meaningful way, recognizing the value in a days work, and making a difference at the end of the day.
I work as a challenge course facilitator, which means I have the opportunity to interact with hundreds of people every year, and I hope that by the end of our time together I have been able to help them learn something about themselves and those around them, even if they themselves don't recognize it. And that gives me great joy and pride in my work, to the point where I may just argue that I live to work. But it's still only a part of who I am...
So is one better than another? Alas, I don't have the answer.
Of course, knowing my penchant for revisiting previous posts, I'm sure I'll have a follow up before too long.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Changing Your Fate
I just saw a movie preview with the tagline "Would you change your fate?" Now that doesn't really make sense to me: how could we know our fate in order to change it? And once we live out our fate, wouldn't it be too late by then? And isn't the very point of "fate" that things are the way they are and there's no changing them? By changing them, wouldn't that effectively nullify the very concept of "fate"? And again, if we don't know our fate, how could we be sure we're changing it? What if the change itself was "fated" to happen?
Vicious circle?
See, I'm of the belief that fate is an excuse; used as a scapegoat, a handy way out of taking responsibility for things not working out your way. I'm sure we've all heard the line, "It wasn't meant to be", or any variation thereof. As I'm sure you could ascertain from many of my previous posts, I'm not big on the idea that defining your success by everything you've done or everything you have (too many variables. There is no such thing as the "self-made man"), I do and will continue to maintain that you still get a say in how things turn out. A cartoon I happened across in the funnies section was a one-panel shot of the protagonist amid a pile of lumber, looking at the empty box titled "Ladder of Success. Some Assembly Required". What role does fate play there? We can each decide to build the ladder or sit by and complain that our ladder wouldn't be tall enough anyway. May we need some help along the way? Of course. Can we add to our lumber? Of course. So are you going to stand by, wishing to change your fate? Or will you start building?
I, for one, will build. But I know I'll need a hand along the way.
Vicious circle?
See, I'm of the belief that fate is an excuse; used as a scapegoat, a handy way out of taking responsibility for things not working out your way. I'm sure we've all heard the line, "It wasn't meant to be", or any variation thereof. As I'm sure you could ascertain from many of my previous posts, I'm not big on the idea that defining your success by everything you've done or everything you have (too many variables. There is no such thing as the "self-made man"), I do and will continue to maintain that you still get a say in how things turn out. A cartoon I happened across in the funnies section was a one-panel shot of the protagonist amid a pile of lumber, looking at the empty box titled "Ladder of Success. Some Assembly Required". What role does fate play there? We can each decide to build the ladder or sit by and complain that our ladder wouldn't be tall enough anyway. May we need some help along the way? Of course. Can we add to our lumber? Of course. So are you going to stand by, wishing to change your fate? Or will you start building?
I, for one, will build. But I know I'll need a hand along the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)