 Jon Husband has picked up an interesting concept from Evelyn Rodriguez and Matthew Dallman: that blogging could be considered a form of performance art. This has a kind of ego-stroking visceral appeal to bloggers (it sure beats the mainstream media depiction of bloggers as ‘a million guys in pajamas’). But does ‘performance art’ actually describe what we do? Go through the history of the terms ‘performance art’ and ‘performing arts’ and you’ll quickly end up in a quagmire: There is no consensus on what these terms mean and what they include and exclude. So let’s go back to the roots and discover what the words originally meant: perform = to give what is needed through some means or vehicle
art = an imitation or reflection of nature, life or reality The first definition explains why we use the term ‘perform surgery’ ñ a performance can as easily be scientific or religious (’perform a ritual’) as artistic. The only requirements for performance are that the actions fill a need and that they do so in an intermediated way, through the body or some other ‘medium’. And that need can be a personal one rather than one for an audience: one might even wryly describe masturbation as ’solo performance art’. By these criteria blogging certainly qualifies as performance, even more than most less-interactive forms of journalism. And there is no question that all forms of writing qualify as art by the second definition. So blogging is a form of performance or performing art. Arguably, as Evelyn points out, so is participation in World of Warcraft or Second Life. Even masks, piercings, clothing, and body painting meet the above definitions of performance art. What does it mean to say that blogging is a performance, or performing, art form? Most performance/performing art is narrative: Blogs, like most music, films, interactive writing, and for that matter most theatre, often tell or retell (artistically) stories. I have argued that blogging is a form of conversation, with unequal roles for, but a tacit contract with, the audience, the other participants in the performance. But “theatre isn’t about narrative, narrative isn’t necessary”, quotes Evelyn. So performance art need not be narrative, provided it meets a need. She argues that performance art should be participatory ñ it needs to engage the intellect, the emotions, and/or the senses ñ and blogging can do that. Matthew Dallman goes further, arguing that blogging is “a vehicle for the emergence of informed intuition”. Between these two definitions, the four Jungian forms of knowledge and learning are represented: intellectual, emotional, sensory and intuitive. And I’ve argued before that good presentations (another form of narrative performance art) can be either informative or entertaining. So it seems as if the ‘what is needed’ that is provided by performance art can be either (a) the acquisition of knowledge or appreciation, or (b) diversion or pleasure. In so doing it does not have to be either narrative or participatory. In that respect, blogging is no different from any other performance art: What fills person A’s needs may not do it for person B, and vice versa. Its ’success’ at filling a need is a function of the needs, openness and capacity of the audience to get value from the presentation: How ready, willing and able they are to appreciate the performance’s message. I would argue that the greater the participation of the audience (even to the point the roles of performer and audience get blurred), the more receptive the audience becomes to the performance’s meaning and value. For example, a good novel will get the reader caught up in the story to the point that s/he becomes a participant in it ñ and imagines himself or herself there. Except when they too tell stories, this is very hard to do in blogging. Fortunately for bloggers who aren’t good at storytelling, there are simpler ways for a performance to succeed. Give me a useful take-away that I can relate to my own experiences, and you’ve succeeded in giving me what I need, and I’ll applaud the performance. Example: In Evelyn’s bio she quotes Goethe: If you must tell me your opinions, tell me what you believe in. I have plenty of doubts of my own. This is brilliant advice for bloggers, in one terse sentence. By including it prominently in her blog, Evelyn shows herself to be an accomplished performance artist. That may have something to do with the fact that Goethe was a genius. Or it may have something to do with the fact that I am ‘ready’ for this message, that it resonates with my worldview and that it meetsa need of the moment. Why she succeeds doesn’t matter. As bloggers, our job is simply to perform, to practice our art in public. Any applause is just a bonus. Category: Other Blogging Articles
|
February 28, 2007
Blogging as Performance Art
February 27, 2007
Peak Oil is Here, and Conservation is Nowhere in Sight
 The latest production data analysis by the Oil Drum makes it clear that we are now at the peak of oil production (about 85 mbbd or 30 bbby), and we can expect a rapid drop-off over the next twenty years (back to about 60 mbbd, 1980s levels, by 2030, but shared among almost twice as many humans as were alive in 1980), and a radical and involuntary change to our way of doing almost everything, as described in Jim Kunstler’s Agenda. There are two things we can do in response to this. The first, which we are already doing, is to try to stretch the peak out to a plateau. The problem with this is that new production is increasingly expensive to bring on-line. This isn’t just a matter of throwing more money at the problem. It’s a matter of throwing more energy at it, as this chart shows:
So to slake our insatiable thirst for the liquid stuff, we’re prepared to construct colossally expensive and dangerous nukes and vulnerable gas pipelines through fragile permafrost, to produce less energy than the projects that power them consume. Just so we can get it in a form we can dump in our gas tanks. The same folly lies behind the use of corn as a bio-fuel ñ it costs more energy to grow, fertilize, harvest and convert corn into fuel than the fuel that it produces gives us, but we’re willing to do it because we’re utterly dependent on liquid hydrocarbons. How is this economically viable? Because we the taxpayers are subsidizing it (through agricultural and other subsidies, financing of wars to keep the Middle East destabilized and oil prices artificially low, tax gifts to rich corporations, and indemnifying the corporate plunderers producing the oil from the costs and damages they are causing to our environment). We are paying Big Oil and Big Agribusiness for the privilege of letting them keep us addicted to liquid fuels and an unsustainable way of life ñ for a little longer. Eventually the stress of this system will pass the breaking point, and the combination of global warming disasters, skyrocketing prices, global oil wars, ecological devastation and massive vulnerability to sabotage, natural disasters and system breakdowns will catch up to us. Then the plateau will end quickly, and it will be worse than just a normal curve downslope ñ it will be like falling off a cliff. The other thing we can do, of course, is to wean ourselves off our addiction to oil. A recent study suggests that corporations can, on average, reduce their energy costs by four times the cost of the reduction programs. And most citizens seem prepared to change if it can be done relatively painlessly, or if it becomes too painful to continue to squander oil (as the inverse correlations between SUV demand and oil prices demonstrate). As Amory Lovins recently showed, government utilities can actual save money by giving away compact fluorescent bulbs, and replacing hot water tanks with European style instant hot water dispensers could pay for itself in less than a year. George Monbiot’s Heat has a hundred other viable ways to conserve. But the lack of political will to be a true leader, the first to make hard decisions that neither corporatist campaign funders nor financially struggling citizens will be too fond of, is evident everywhere, especially in the most extravagant users of oil (North America), and in the struggling nations of the world (notably Asia). So we have a choice: Stretch the End of Oil out a little longer, at tremendous financial and ecological cost, and face an even worse and protracted withdrawal crisis after that, or begin now to seriously change our lifestyles, everything we do, our very way of thinking. Since it is human nature to do only what we must when we must, this is not really a choice at all. We will continue our short-sighted attempts to put off the fall of the oil economy until we are poised on the edge of the cliff with no way back. Only then will we embrace conservation seriously. It’s going to be ugly for our grandchildren. We’re lucky we probably won’t bearound to have to face up to them for what we’ve done. Category: Why Civilization is Unsustainable
|
February 26, 2007
What’s New in Innovation: Five Trends Worth Thinking About
 I haven’t written much about innovation lately, but that’s not because it isn’t important. It’s mostly because, at levels of energy that have a broad social or environmental impact, there simply isn’t much of it going on. Lots of R&D, lots of design aimed to make products sexier (and sometimes more user-friendly), and, depressingly, a ton of marketing aimed at making consumers feel better about paying too much for foreign-made crap and lousy service. But among all this business-as-usual there are five trends that are promising, and which, if they continue, could actually help meet real human needs and make the world a better place: 1. Co-development with cohorts: The idea of co-development and peer production of products and services with customers, citizens and employees is still relatively new, and gaining steam slowly. What’s interesting is its corollary: That co-develoment and peer production is probably best done by cohort groups. In terms of the need/affinity matrix that means that once a group with a common need or affinity has co-developed one new product or service, it probably makes sense to tap their energies and talents to co-develop more, instead of establishing new cohort groups around other needs or affinities. Why? Because these cohorts are more likely to share values, worldviews, experiences and needs that would make such co-development easier, more enjoyable and more fruitful. What’s more, it takes a while for a group working on some open source or peer production project to gel, to get to know each other, so once they’ve done that they’re further along the collaboration learning curve and hence more likely to be effective, faster, in their next project. And as they age, their needs are likely to co-evolve along similar lines, so they are likely to endure as cohorts. 2. Government-supported user-centred entrepreneurship: Instead of spending R&D moneys on self-serving large corporations, oligopolies and academic institutions, we should be following the Danish model of investing R&D in user co-development and peer production groups who are driven by personal needs to produce something of value (often to the point they will do so even if there is no funding whatever). It only makes sense that the ROI on such an investment is likely to be much greater than investments in big organizations whose main skill is crafting clever funding proposals for governments. And the average user-centred investment is likely to be much smaller, allowing many more projects to be funded. The problem, of course, is the government approval bureaucracy ñ it probably needs to be dismantled and replaced by an agency that is measured by the number and diversity of initiatives it sponsors rather than the amount of paper it produces. Who knows, such an initiative could produce thousands of disruptive innovations like this entrepreneurial one in the guitar market, and in the process break down oligopolies instead of propping them up. 3. Engaging the subconscious mind in innovation: The innovation programs I’ve been involved in have mostly been tightly managed and measured by ‘objective’ criteria, and discouraged the kind of wild ideas that come out of holistic thinking (ever seen a chorus of raised eyebrows shut up a brilliant, half-thought-out, totally unorthodox idea before it can even be considered)? We are taught to believe that only intellectually-reasoned, consciously thought-out concepts are defensible, and to distrust our instincts, emotions and senses if they ‘tell’ us to do something different from what simple rational linear thought would dictate. Indigenous cultures know that allowing our unconscious minds time to integrate instinctive, emotional and sensory information (much of it subconscious) with conscious thinking leads to better decisions. Even our unimaginative culture acknowledges that ’sleeping on it’ can help clarify and focus and bring new ideas to bear on a problem. What we need are innovation programs that teach and encourage such holistic thinking and the synthesis of all four types of knowledge. 4. Giving customers and citizens an ethical alternative: As Karen Fraser argues in the HBR breakthroughs list (the graphic above is from her article), the reason many of us continue to buy from unethical vendors is that we don’t have any ready alternative. The oligopolies love this, since it causes the customer to give up trying to live a socially and environmentally responsible life, and instead become a mere consumer of what the oligopolies are pushing. When a company like the Body Shop comes along to rock the boat, its industry first heaps vitriol on the threat and then copies it, usually dishonestly, using misleading ads and greenwashing to try to represent itself as ethical when it really isn’t, so that when the fraudsters are finally exposed (BP, Shell, etc.) the public becomes even more cynical and is less likely to believe any truly ethical alternative exists. What we need to do is understand how the real ethical alternatives, companies like flooring manufacturer Interface Carpets, manage to become powerhouses in their industries, and then we need to find ways to publicly sponsor promotions for such companies (they are, after all, providing an important public service, even if they are profit-oriented). [Full disclosure: I have some shares in Interface]. 5. Letting us all be virtually beautiful: As gasoline becomes more expensive, we are going to be spending more and more of our time communicating virtually instead of face to face. That’s a shame in a way (communication is nearly always better face to face) but new technologies are emerging that make virtual communication less awkward, and less travel also has environmental benefits. But this article hints at the possibility that we may be able to make ourselves ‘virtually’ more beautiful as well. And what’s the harm in that? If we’re looking at people on-camera, it’s nicer to see people who are attractive-looking. It can help our self-esteem to be seen as attractive and complimented for it. It may even positively affect our credibility and career success (lots of studies suggest beautiful people are considered more honest, and get ahead further and faster than their similarly-competent but less attractive peers). So if you look more attractive to your customers, your boss, your staff, your parents, your grandchildren, than you really are, is that dishonest? Does it indicate some personality flaw to want to do so? Maybe. But we all like attention and appreciation, and if technology can help us get it, I think that’s a plus. Of course, virtual dating services may have some problems with it. But is it really all that different from makeupand girdles? Thanks to Innovation Weekly for all the links above. Category: Innovation & Society
|
February 25, 2007
Sunday Open Thread – February 25, 2007
What I’m planning on writing about soon:
What are you thinking about these days? Cartoon from the New Yorker by ex-National LampoonerPC Vey. Get your favourite New Yorker cartoons as prints or apparel here. Cartoonists need our support. |
February 24, 2007
Saturday Links for the Week – February 24, 2007
 What It All Means This Week:
|
February 23, 2007
How Stuff Gets Done
 Something remarkable has happened in the workplace in the forty years since I first entered it. Virtually every job in now unique, and no one knows everything about anyone’s job, or how to do it well, except the person who’s doing it. The only exceptions ñ a declining number of assembly line manufacturing jobs, and a depressing number of telemarketing and other jobs ñ are ripe for automation.
So for most of us, the workday involves deciding (constantly) what to do next and how to do it. This is true even for people in ‘responsive’ jobs like customer service. A number of factors come into play in deciding what to do and how to do it. There may be standard procedures, policies or regulations that constrain our freedom to decide. There may be situations where we know what the boss would want our decision to be. We may not have the authorization or capability to do what we think would be the best decision. There may be obstacles to doing what we think is right. So what do we do? We weigh the consequences of doing what we think is best, versus what is easiest. When there’s no conflict between them, the decision is simple. When there is, such as when a customer wants us to x (the best action) but we know the boss would want us to do y (the easiest action), we will have to make a number of judgements. If the boss is unlikely to find out, or if it’s easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, we’re likely to do x, especially if the customer is aggressive and is making it harder to do y. If we don’t care that much about taking the best action (e.g. if we’re disgruntled or bored in our job, or if the customer is an asshole or a complete idiot who won’t appreciate what we do anyway), or if x is illegal, then we’ll probably do y. And then there are the situations when we want to do x, but we’re blocked from doing it because it violates policy or because we don’t have (and can’t easily get) the authorization or capability (skill or resources) to do it. In these cases we improvise, using workarounds. If possible, we will find a way to do x, the right thing. We’ll find a way to get around the policy by justifying it as inapplicable or a special situation. We’ll find ‘hostages’ who will agree with us that x is clearly the right thing to do despite the policy, or who we can quote to get authorization we otherwise would not get easily. We’ll ‘borrow’ the skills or resources from someone who does have them, and chalk up a tacit IOU to be repaid later. We’ll find a way. After all, we know our job best, and so what is right is what we will do whenever possible, even if it isn’t easy, and often even if it’s forbidden. That’s how stuff gets done. Just thinking about all my years of work in a dozen different positions, I would hazard a guess that the normal checks and constraints and tensions in any business are such that more than 50% of the time we need to make a decision between what is right and what is easiest. And I would hazard a guess that in 90% of those cases we resolve the conflict in favour of what is right. Even if you’re a CEO, your situation is the same ñ your ‘boss’ is the board of directors or the bank or the corporate lawyer or the insurance company telling you not to do what’s best for the customer or the employees ñ and like the rest of us CEOs will go to the wall (but not over it) to do what’s right. I believe it’s human nature. That means that we spend much of our work lives (and a stressful part at that) making difficult decisions and finding workarounds to do what’s best. That’s why organizations that devolve a huge amount of authority and responsibility to the front line usually find productivity, performance and work satisfaction go up. They’re reducing the number of conflicts and the need for workarounds. And in all but at most 5% of cases (50% x (100%-90%)) the outcome will be the same whether they’re hands-off or micro-managing. One could even argue that that 5% is a modest investment in ‘wrong’ decisions that produces a huge return in learning from those mistakes. When Bush wanted to reward the megapolluters for their generous campaign donations, he didn’t confront Congress to abolish environmental laws (OK he did a bit, but most of the laws remains on the books) ñ he simply told the EPA and the other government agencies to stop enforcing the law. He found a way to make it relatively easy to do what to him was ‘right’, by using a convenient workaround. Watch how traffic manages itself when stoplights go out ñ people work around it much more effectively themselves than when an officer shows up and tries to regulate the chaos. Workarounds are probably the most prevalent and effective form of innovation in most organizations, and perhaps in our world. So what if we added ‘finding effective workarounds’ to our Save the World toolkit? As a means of making a better world easier, it is hard to imagine a more natural solution than workarounds. Just as squirrels find a way to defeat the baffles we set up to keep them out of bird feeders, shouldn’t we be able to find a way to defeat the organizations, people, processes and technologies that are ruining our planet, and creating the social and environmental problems that bedevil us? Or do we have a problem with scale here? Workarounds are fine when they’re within our sphere of control, but what happens when the problems we’re trying to work around are bigger than all of us? Pick an example: Global warming. In our part of the word, coal-fired power plants are the worst polluters. What’s easy is to shrug off the fact that the government that owns many of them has tried to switch to renewable energy but concluded they still need these plants. What’s right (for our health, and that of our world) is to get them shut down.What’s the workaround that will enable that to happen? Categories: Activism and Innovation & Society
|
February 22, 2007
Jim Kunstler’s Agenda (and Mine)
 Red line: Sustainable population/sustainable total footprint at prevailing levels of consumption, with no provision for any non-human species. Green line: Sustainable population/sustainable total footprint at prevailing levels of consumption, with provision for a healthy level of biodiversity. In 1980 we started living on borrowed time. We’re now living 1/3 above our planet’s sustainable capacity, and per capita resource consumption is accelerating, headed for twice absolute sustainable capacity by 2040. Regular readers know that I believe we are in our civilization’s final century. My reasons for believing that are complex, though many of them can be gleaned from my Save the World Reading List. I also believe that, like in past civilizations, the collapse of ours will not be due to one single cause but rather to a cascading series of crises. These could include:
The occurrence of any of these, in our overextended and fragile economy and political society, increases the probability of triggering the others. My brain, my heart, my senses and my instincts all tell me we are near the end, and that by the latter part of this century this will start to become very apparent. But I cannot convince you if you are not ready to be convinced. Those who are convinced are asking what to do. They tend to fall into two camps: Those who believe that concerted human action might avert the collapse of civilization, and those who don’t. The latter group is looking for means to a softer landing, and a head start for a possible next civilization. There is a third group, who I have dubbed neo-survivalists, who are actually welcoming and looking to accelerate our civilization’s collapse. I have no time for this third group: If they could conceive of the horror that will accompany collapse, they would change their tune. I understand the first group, as I used to be part of it. It is, after all, human nature to be hopeful, to believe we live in good times and that good times can last forever, to expect and depend on the promise of new technologies without recognizing that every new technology has created as many problems as it has solved. It took a lot to educate me that we are far past the point of no return, and that the second, softer-landing group is most likely correct. For the last couple of years, this blog has reflected that belief. James Kunstler’s book The Long Emergency is one of a growing list of books that also reflect this belief. He recently reiterated the steps he prescribes for a softer landing, in a synopsis he calls his Agenda. “We will have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common activities of daily life”, he says. Specifically:
In short, relearning to make everything more local and smaller-scale. And not relying on government or big institutions for services, financial support, or bail-outs of last resort, since the government will have no money. And becoming resilient ñ so if our income stream suddenly disappears, or all our stuff breaks down, or the people who do things for us (from teaching our kids to cutting our hair to supplying us with bottled water) all go out of business, we will know what to do, and how to look after ourselves and each other. A shocking majority of us are spending so much, borrowing so much, saving so little, and so narrow in our self-reliance skills, that any sudden economic shock would be ruinous. A lot of people ask Kunstler (and me) for timelines ñ when will we have to start working on this? The answer is: no one knows, and now. We cannot wait for systems to collapse to start learning the skills we will need when they do, and to start creating local networks for the production and distribution of what we need to live, and to start planning for precisely what we will do, assuming we can depend on no one else. Katrina taught us that, if we didn’t already know. Kunstler concludes: “If you’re depressed, change your focus. Stop wishing and start doing. The best way to feel hopeful about the future is to get off your ass and demonstrate to yourself that you are a capable, competent individual resolutely able to face new circumstances”. So, time to get learning new capacities: how to grow your own food, make your own clothes, make your own furniture, and repair everything you own. How to set up a business you can run from home that serves local needs. How to manage your own health, and that of those in your community who cannot care for themselves. And time to create new local networks: community renewable energy co-ops, local farm markets and delivery services, neighbourhood craft and skill networks that make and fix beautiful, durable, essential things from local materials. Will we relearn these essential capacities, establish these critical local networks, and recreate communities that work, before cascading crises are upon us and it’s too late to do so? It will probably depend on how soon they occur, how many hit us at once, and how severe they are. Most of all, it will depend on how many of us see the value in acquiring these capacities and creating these networks and rebuilding self-sufficient communities that work, for their own sake, now. And doing so together, not just as neo-survivalists trying foolishly and selfishly to create resiliency just for themselves and their family. We’ll do what we must, when we must. Maybe in time for a softer landing, and in so doing perhaps create a model for the next, gentler, lower-footprint society. And maybe not. Category: Building a Community-Based Society
|
February 21, 2007
The Need to Make a Better World Easier
 Here’s a few questions for baby boomer readers: Was there a seismic shift in thinking in the 1960s and early 1970s? If not, how do you account for the political forces that brought about the end of the Vietnam War, and important legislation like the Clean Air Act? And if so, what happened to that shift? I remember those years well, and fondly, but in retrospect I’m not sure if I understood them well enough to answer the questions above. I am inclined answer ‘yes’ to the first question, and to attribute the loss of momentum to two paradoxes that George Monbiot calls The Rebound Effect and the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate. Taken together, these paradoxes describe human behaviour that abhors change and seeks equilibrium. If a lot of people buy fuel-efficient vehicles, pretty soon demand for gas goes down, price drops and gas-gulpers become economical again. And with the savings from their fuel-efficient vehicles, people can afford to drive further and more often, and make other changes that negate the benefits their change in thinking might have brought about. In Canada recently we’ve had two seismic changes in thinking that are about as paradoxical as they come: Global warming soared to the top of the polls as the most important issue facing us today (and the black market is getting $150 a ticket for tonight’s speech in Toronto by Al Gore), yet, at the same time, right-wing conservative, Kyoto reneger and global warming denier Stephen Harper has soared in popularity and put his party back ahead in the opinion polls. How does one account for this? Well, as I explained in an earlier post, the media have been hyping the subject of global warming to the point it’s now top-of-mind to most of us. But Canadians don’t like the new Liberal leader, StÈphane Dion, who, despite being an environmentalist, is a long-time party stalwart (of a party still stinging from recent scandal) and a Francophone who’s rather clumsy in English. There is clearly resentment that the Liberals missed the chance to pick a ‘new blood’ leader, and instead picked another leader from QuÈbec. So the surge in popularity for Harper is really more a drop in popularity for Dion. Nevertheless, this should give environmentalists pause — the battle to get Canada to live up to its Kyoto commitments is clearly far from over. The situation in the US is not all that different. Despite Americans having the worst, and most ideologically extreme conservative, president in decades, the 2008 presidential race is shaping up to be one among four moderate conservatives (Clinton or Edwards versus Giuliani or McCain), none of whom has a environmental or peace agenda. Canada has Elizabeth May (Green) and the US has Dennis Kucinich, both of whom have both environmental and peace credentials, but neither is given any chance of becoming their country’s leader. And even when Al Gore was VP and environmental laws were actually being enforced, megapolluters like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries flaunted the law more than they did under previous anti-environment regimes. What’s going on is illustrated in the graphic above:
The lesson is clear. Shall I say it again? We do what we must (what’s urgent), then we do what’s easy, and then we do what’s fun. Even when there is a sense of urgency, the rebound effect, or ignorance over what to do, or lack of political or social will, will usually preclude any sustainable change in results. And if there’s a sense of importance but not urgency, we’ll be content to talk about it but not act. If we really want to bring about sustainable change, we need to make it (i) easy and (ii) either inexpensive or perceived to be important. If hybrids and other energy-efficient vehicles were heavily subsidized and available in every size and shape, they would quickly take over the market. To prevent drivers from driving them more with their savings, this subsidy would need to be financed by a large tax on gasoline. Similarly, European-style bicycle-only lanes and other facilities to make it easier to use zero-emission transportation could lead to permanent environmentally friendly behaviour changes, even among those who don’t care about the environment. The same easy + (inexpensive or important) approach applies to achieving enduring social and environmental change in every area where it is needed. Can we bring about necessary seismic shifts in human thinking, and commensurate changes in behaviour? My answer?: It doesn’t matter. Those shifts won’t be enough to make a sustainable difference. Making it easier (and cheaper) to do the right thing will. Innovators, this isthe challenge we need you to take up: Help make a better world easier.
Categories: Innovation & Society, and How to Save the World
|
February 20, 2007
a small indiscretion
the train is full you place your bag between your legs the train lurches into motion: with the shortage of footroom-for-four and then you feel the pressure of the calf of the passenger opposite but as you prepare to extract and reposition your leg alarmed, you turn to face the person opposite and you take in the fact that she has long, lean legs and she has her elegant black handbag between her legs too, and something makes you stop squirming your leg, until it begins to move gently against you you notice you have been holding your breath: you wonder if she is smiling at you, from behind the paper: you are now so caught up in this strange dance does she sense your response? you wonder as she too perhaps you’re just imagining it, and as the train starts up, she again presses her leg against yours |
February 19, 2007
What I Would Do If I Weren’t Blogging
 If you weren’t blogging, what would you be doing with the time instead? This is, of course, a loaded question. Is blogging your excuse for not doing some things you would rather not do, or don’t want to admit you’re afraid to do? And if so, why are you avoiding doing these other things, or what are you afraid of? Is blogging an addiction? A security blanket? Don’t you hate it when people get you all defensive about your blogging by asking loaded questions? I have a pretty good idea of what I would do with the 2-3 hours a day I spend blogging. I follow Pollard’s Law: I do what I must, then I do what’s easy, and then I do what’s fun. Blogging to me is easy and fun, and is only a ‘must’ to the extent that if I stopped now, most of the attention I get for my ideas would be lost, and I would lose the self-discipline of thinking about what’s important to me for a couple of hours each day. I have reached the stage where there are probably no other ‘musts’ that I would immediately start (or resume) doing if I stopped blogging. I have learned to say no, and to train people not to expect me to consider as urgent the things that they consider urgent. So there are many fewer urgent, unimportant tasks in my day than there used to be. If I had stopped blogging a couple of years ago, those urgent unimportant things that used to preoccupy most of my waking hours would have quickly filled the time void. Now, I think, I would be looking for other non-urgent important things to do instead, if I gave up my time-consuming hobby. Though, according to Pollard’s Law, they would probably be the easy, fun, important things, rather than necessarily the most important things. Here’s a list of what I might do, and what I probably wouldn’t do, showing how urgent, easy, fun, and important each alternative is (to me). I’ve sorted them by Pollard’s Law:
What’s worse, as long as something higher up in the list doesn’t become harder (e.g. #4 – when the power goes off, you can’t watch TV or blog), it’s unlikely we will ever get to the things lower on the list. Pollard’s Law doesn’t permit us to be what we aren’t and do what we don’t have to do but perhaps should (i.e. important things), unless they’re easy or at least fun, and only then after we’ve put the urgent tasks behind us. In fact, all of the 21-22 non-blogging hours of my day (and most people’s days) are consumed with urgent things, our daily ‘musts’: working for a living (10.5 hours including getting ready and commuting), sleeping (7.5 hours), eating, exercise, chores and the minimal necessary social activity (combined 3-4 hours). On the weekend, other chores and family ‘obligations’ (a euphemism for ‘musts’ even when they’re also easy or fun) fill much of the work void. But on the weekends we might at last dip down to some of the medium urgency tasks and even the low-urgency easy tasks (choosing, perversely, the easy ones over the more difficult fun ones, because who has the energy left for the latter?) There’s no point feeling guilty about this, or beating yourself up for your ‘choices’ and procrastination. You can’t fight the Law. You have nochoice. We do what we must. Now you know why I blog. What’s your excuse? Categories: Other Blogging Articles and Getting Things Done
|
