Unfinished Business

It's often the case that after people face a crisis and come through relatively victorious (or at least ahead of their low expectations) they then stop trying so hard. Paul Krugman mentions this today, about how stimulus measures provide a modicum of hope and some Indian Summer tidings and already people are prepared to say, "Stop now, we're in the black!"

But the experience of the world, in every dimension, in every aspect, in both the material and spiritual realm, is that nothing is over until it's over. We fight the good fight in order to complete the race, not instead of completing the race. And we keep striving. If you burn all your resources to reach what is almost the peak of the world, and then fall away slowly, it is a terrible thing.

I look at the figures and I see how the College of Wyverns has reached a peak simply by numbers and effort, but with a discernible lack of cleverness, and I realise that there are limits to how much a small band of tireless workers can do to overhaul a huge machine that no longer has a unified mission. It can yet be saved; but the brains are falling to pieces, and the work has not been done that will keep it alive.

Time for another envisioning exercise, I suppose. We all pray it will work out.

Envisioning Exercise

Once in a while, established institutions decide that they want to reinvent themselves. It's interesting to look at the reasons why they want to do it, the way they go about it, and the kinds of outcomes they expect or manufacture.

Why do they do it?

The most obvious reason is boredom or staleness. Having done the same thing for so long, and perhaps never ever having come close to their previous idea of a Promised Land, they have decided to change things around. Instead of some great and powerful vision, they want something easier, lighter, or more accessible; most of all, it must be different. It's a sort of itchy-backside syndrome, symptomatic of this modern age in which attention span lapses easily and people want to be entertained rather than think about how to do things right.

The second most common reason is relevance. Somehow, they feel they are not as relevant to the times as they ought to be. So they look at present-day trends and near-future trends in a very scientific-looking way and say, "Hey these are trends which we should be targeting our envisioning processes at!" or some such guff. It's guff because a vision is independent of relevance. For example, if a school has the vision, "Every Atlantean a superior being!" then the means of getting there can be tailored to be relevant but the vision need not be changed. A good vision is always relevant.

The third reason is that various rubrics for measuring institutional capability and institutional excellence seem to require it. "Hey we need an envisioning exercise so that the quality-control inspectors will see that we actually have a process for perverting distorting prostituting enhancing our original vision, mission, and philosophy!" Never mind that doing so probably means that you are altering the objectives of your five-year plan every three years and hence never achieving anything serious. But it maintains cash-flow, cynically speaking.

How do they do it?

The obvious method is the eponymous 'envisioning exercise' (or EE for short). A good EE starts with nice music, a fanfare, a keynote address. It is held in some place which feels prestigious (if meant to be a public display) or pleasantly conspiratorial (if meant to be an inner-circle bonding exercise). It continues by posing irrelevant questions (see previous section for some hints as to what these might be) and the mass dropping of keywords like some sort of cluster bombing. It has an all-encompassing theme, like "Envisioning the Role of the Ministry of Education Security Services [insert Name here] in the New Millennium".

Occasionally, this exercise is outsourced to a think-tank, what Churchill might have referred to as, "Boffins on tap, but not on top." This is surprisingly sometimes better with regard to the outcomes, since an external think-tank is less subject to groupthink relative to the original group. But this is a bit like saying, "I can't see clearly, so why don't you describe to me what I'm supposed to be seeing?"

In detail, what happens is this:

• the Boss (or boss-proxy) will call the cluster-bombing meeting or conference to attention and stress the great importance of this congregation to the future of the institution, the nation, and the world (not always in this order);
• a keynote address or opening statement will be given, that subtly (or not so subtly) incorporates all the buzzwords, terms, and propaganda required ideals;
• there may be secondary speakers, shouts of "Hear, hear!" and other sounds of agreement and support;
• time will be given for discussion (although it is often quite clear what outcomes are desired from the keynote speech or opening statement);
• break-out groups (not to be confused with break-dancing) will be formed to give the sense that everyone is involved in an intense search for grand unifying theories or overarching ideas or some such;
• the conclave will be reassembled and a quest for the holy grail meeting will be reconvened to give the Boss an opportunity to 'synthesize' a vision that he will emphasize is the product of much effort on the part of the participants.

It is all rather exciting for some people.

What are the expected outcomes?

To be blunt, the main outcome is what might be called the construction of a 'professionally relevant concept'. a sentence of modern (hence 'relevant') jargon (hence 'professional') which is sufficiently structured but indefinite (hence 'concept') as to look visionary. It is often hard to differentiate the truly visionary from the delusional; in this case, it is easy because the people playing at 'envisioning exercises' tend not to be delusional but cynical.

I've had my share of envisioning exercises over the years. You can find my thoughts on 'holistic education' by searching this blog, for example; I raise that particular phrase because it is one of the targets of modern envisioning in educational circles.

For me, I don't expect much from envisioning exercises. It strikes me that to be powerful and moving and relevant for all times and all ages, a vision must be obvious and yet ineffable. When we say 'grand endeavour' it is something a lot more than 'lots of work' or 'helluva job'. When we say 'signs of a better age', we aren't saying 'ads promising a good time'. Similarly, "Each man a shelter from the wind and a refuge from the storm" sounds a lot better than "Each man a scholar, officer and gentleman."

Of course, your mileage (and vision) may vary.

Vision And Mission

I've been speculating on the nature of organisational progress. The hardcore stuff will of course be work, but here is what I think: I think that you need at least two kinds of people, in a roughly 1:5 ratio — the vision types and the mission types. It is tempting to suggest that the former are primarily divergent thinkers and the latter are convergent thinkers; I shall fall into that temptation because it is convenient.

We can review organisational effectiveness in terms of a) expanding the core competency or b) expanding the legitimate reach of the organisation. This is predicated on the assumption that organisational effectiveness means that the organisation becomes more effective with time at spreading whatever it is that it is supposed to be spreading. Of course, some people do not think an organisation should spread, but external pressures must at the very least be resisted or the organisation will shrink.

This is not to say that the organisation necessarily has to expand in terms of expenditure, physical size, or number of staff. The focus here is on the size of the organisation's self-image. Does it think of becoming more influential? Does it think of using data to inform its processes, thus making them more effective (or efficient, if the two coincide)? Does it think of new ways of doing these things? This is about vision.

Neither is this to say that an organisation necessarily have to think of new things to do or new things to mess around in. The focus here is on the shape of the organisation's self image. Does it retain its fundamentals — its reason for existence, its orientation towards the world, its approach to doing things, its ideas on what ought to be done? This is about mission.

Three kinds of organisational problems can arise in this model.

Firstly, if there is low vision, then there is low real growth. The organisation will not become a benchmark for its industry, or if it does, it is based not on quality, but on quantity. Conversely, an organisation with vision may not be #1 in size (in staff or physical plant) but may be #1 in qualitatively substantial ways (brand name, style etc). The staff will stay on because they are enthused by this vision (and not merely attracted by being able to tout the brand on their CVs). They will stay on because the organisation is developing them as people. Another common problem is some people don't know what a vision is, or that vision can be refocussed.

Secondly, if there is random departure from the mission, then there may be bloat and overdiversification. The sense of direction towards the visionary horizon is thwarted. But because most people are used to convergent thinking (consider the phrases 'staying on task', 'toeing the line', 'keeping the faith' and other defensive options), this is seldom a problem. The more serious problem may be deliberate departure from the mission, in which case the organisation may succeed, but not in terms of its original intent. This can be considered to be mission failure; it is as if a 30-day lunar probe were to end up sending data back from Venus for 30 seconds. Some people might consider this a great success though.

Thirdly, if the 1:5 ratio is significantly off (e.g. too few visionaries or too many missionaries), then the organisation may become a provincial circus, in which the same acts with minor variations are repeated everyday to the easily-impressed. The organisation may also become a marching band, in which impressive acts of trained synchronic movement are carried out. There is then the semblance of creativity, where the term 'choreography' is more apt. The organisation may also become a kaleidoscope. This produces pretty pictures all the time, but the pictures are unrelated except by the fact that the production process automatically imposes visual symmetry on what is essentially a chaotic process with chaotic outcomes.

All these problems can be seen as small states with large budgets gear up to take advantage of large states with no common sense. This is an artifact of globalisation. What I'm waiting for is when standards become truly global, with inspection teams walking into all kinds of organisations at random and information control becomes near-impossible. Then the nimblest and most focussed tight-rope walkers and lion-tamers will survive; the rest may have to become human cannonballs or clowns.

Incrementalism

It's long been held in social and political life that getting things done requires a hard-headed approach. Although the literature shows that a 'nice first, then tit-for-tat' approach is a winning game rule in most cases, this is sometimes spun to show that the last person to act in a heavy-handed way should win.

This is very close to deficit thinking, by which I mean a philosophy of life in which avoiding losses is better than achieving gains, and in which risk avoidance trumps risk-taking. It is also somewhat related to the idea of achieving incremental gains (sums of very small increments, like an integration problem in calculus) as opposed to higher-risk quantum gains (large jumps, but be careful that you land safely).

But the long-term payoffs are interesting to see. Because human faith and sight are limited, we tend to look at the near horizons, like bacteria in petri dishes. Contrary to this, the fact is that if we leap out of the petri dish, we will find it hard to ever go back. This is the key point about long-term payoffs in optimistic strategies: that if you succeed, there will not be sufficient losses to bring you back to square one. On the other hand, short-term payoffs with pessimistic strategies tend to keep you mired in the petri dish.

One last caveat though: great leaps forward can often be traumatic. There is often an 'implementation dip' and this may be followed by a short-sighted purge of the leading strategists. Some years later, as abundant gains develop, these gains are then consolidated incrementally, with the incrementalists taking the credit for the abundance.

50 Facts That Should Change The World

That's the title of Jessica Williams's book of powerful and intriguing truths. Others have summarised this list elsewhere. But sometimes it is also important to juxtapose various truths and see how they work with (or against) each other.

Truth #20, for example, says that cars kill two people every minute. Truth #22 says that 150,000 people are killed by global warming every year. Do some calculations. #20 will show you that 120 people are killed by cars per hour; 2,880 per day; 1,051,200 per year. In other words, cars kill almost exactly 7 times as many people per year than global warming does. And since cars also contribute to global warming, we should just eliminate cars!

Really?

Well, there are about 6.8 billion people on this planet today. I checked here. This means that approximately 0.015% of the world's population dies because of cars. And if you examine the ticker on that site, the rate of births far outweighs the rate of deaths from ALL sources of death. And nobody has bothered, as far as I know, to measure how many lives are saved by combustion-engine-driven transport every day.

If you were particularly callous, you might conclude that #20 and #22 do not matter as much as finding ways to provide a better life for those still living. But I'm not quite so callous, I think; as Donne wrote, "Each man's death diminishes me." Yet, I am also quite sure that most of us don't think of such things much. Even when we do, the breadth and range of vision required are too great for comfort, the ability to do significantly much seems too small.

The niggling voice of one Robert Browning, however, still speaks to me. He said, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp; or what's a heaven for?" Ah, that Browning. He bugs me all the time, an incurable optimist about humanity who also once wrote, "The best is yet to be; the last of life, for which the first was made."

Widescreen

As a qualitative researcher in the social sciences, I'm not one to form hypotheses about social situations without cross-checking among the members of a given milieu. So recently, when I polled The Family's senior officers about the events of the last month or so, I was amused to find out the places where the stories matched and did not match. It all depended on who told what to whom, and very often, what was told to one was not what was told to another. The whole thing was a very complex web of interwoven narratives boiling down to several foci of consensus.

It strikes me that life is indeed less of a life-and-death struggle than many would have you think. It's just that all these interwoven narratives tend to convince us that the immediate milieu and the local interactions are paramount, of the same scale as the clash of civilisations. The big picture and the massive externals are often ignored in our up-close-and-personal knife-fights. To the big fish in a small pond, the idea of human intervention against them must be particularly threatening; to us, the idea of divine intervention against us is as terrible. We'd rather just keep our parochial mindsets, thank you very much.

People who squat in the same pond for years tend to get possessive of their pond and their way of squatting. I am no exception; most of us are not. We do tend to become increasingly more alert to some minor changes in our environment, while less sensitive to other changes. In intrinsically more social animals, this takes the form of sensitivity towards social phenomena such as relative dominance, patronage, symbolic posturing, and so on. Some speculate the human brain has developed to such a large size simply because of the need to keep track of such social interactions.

This is why convincing people of the big picture is such a difficult thing. Until the price of rice rises 350% in 5 years, until the price of soyabeans makes that crop the most expensive food crop in the world, until people begin to find out that cannabis sativa is the second best (and most reviled) food crop available to humans, things just don't have an impact on us. We continue to reinforce our socially-constructed myths and power structures while the physical and spiritual facts of the world dictate their obsolescence. How sad.

Can Holistic Education Exist? (Part 3)

In my last disquisition on this topic, my conclusion was that perhaps, if you were running a Christian mission school, you would have to look at the Christian doctrine regarding the chief end of man; i.e. what kind of holism man was supposedly created for.

This is probably a rather contentious situation when it comes to the details. I am pretty certain that while Judaeo-Christian institutions have many points of agreement, the points of difference exercise them more. And so, I'm just going to float an hypothetical Christian school's educational credo (yeah, the usual philosophy, vision, mission sequence) and see what people say (if anything).

Please note that what follows is a kind of description of the ethical underpinnings of such an hypothetical community. At some point I suppose I will address the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but not here. And this is certainly not a strategic plan or a detailed workplan. It is only a preamble, if you like, for such things.

Here goes. And I do sincerely hope that readers will comment on how this can be improved, given the premises on which it has been constructed.

=====

We believe in one God, eternal and almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth. We believe that He created the world and its people and cares for them. We believe that the best foundation for a fruitful and satisfying life in human society is having a right relationship with Him. This relationship is exemplified and justified by the life, atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It demands a lifestyle and a value system which is consonant with that demonstrated and elucidated by the Word of God.

In line with our beliefs and values, we see our students as young people who can be developed by inculcating a desire to seek out what is true, right and beautiful, primarily in a Christian sense; and by providing them with an education aimed at this, so that they may serve society well in the latter part of their lives. Our vision therefore is that every one of them will come to show excellence in learning, in leading, and in living.

This vision is empowered by a school philosophy which maintains that it is desirable and possible to develop and implement a programme of education which will meet the needs and interests of every student. Every one of these young people has a God-given potential which can be fulfilled — and everyone who enters the school can manifest success and high achievement in different areas through hard work and a positive attitude.

Our mission must therefore be to...

1. create conditions where all students can exercise their initiative and responsibility to attain excellence;
2. establish an environment where students can hope to develop their potential into concrete achievements, irrespective of their backgrounds and abilities;
3. foster a safe, caring and orderly community for spiritual, intellectual, social, emotional and physical growth;
4. prepare young people to meet the challenge of rapid change in society, in a way that is pleasing to God.

Parallels

The word 'parallel' is Greek in origin, from 'para-', which means 'beside and distinct'; and 'allo-' which means 'in like manner or positional relationship'. A parallel, then, is something that is not the same as, but virtually equivalent to, that to which it is parallel. Greek prepositions are many and varied, but combining two in one word always leads to interesting vocabulary.

Here are snippets from a parallel universe, upon a summit one might vaguely have thought of as somewhat Olympian.

=====

"There is," said the elder statesman (now retired), "an institution that prides itself on putting up eagles in every courtyard, that puts its principles on display and violates them with impunity, that sets up a condition in which rule of law maintains order, but in which the law is an instrument constructed and administered by those intent on maintaining power and control.

"For where we speak of conflict, the word which our first speaker omitted must also be mentioned - and that word is power. It is a sad fact of our non-ideal world that many institutions perpetuate the power of those who no longer possess the right to power, the will to power, or the fact of power. These are old powers, no longer relevant to the modern world. What they have left is positional power, entrenched by decree, and they hang on to it ruthlessly.

"I am not speaking of the Roman Empire, although this might have applied equally to them."

=====

"It is a small entity," said the minister, "With the good fortune not to have any resources of note, except the will, mind and ability to sweat. I say 'good fortune', because human nature is such that if it had any resources to exploit, those in power would have wanted to attain positions of power to dip their hands into its cookie jar, or to rule and subjugate it.

"But it is a realistic entity. It functions on three principles: 1) that the world is not an ideal place (although it is a place for idealists); 2) that it can be of help to many and thus cement a place for itself; 3) that it can achieve far more than its resources seem to allow, by ingenuity, wit, patience, determination, and good humour.

"It cannot lead the world or drive global culture or revolution. But it can survive, thrive, and act as a model that others can see and be inspired by."

=====

Parallels are funny things. Sometimes, we see as through a glass darkly; sometimes, as face to face. (This is called optical dichroism.) Sometimes, we see with blinding sight, that happiness is not an affliction and sobriety not always a virtue. And sometimes, we are enlightened in all humility, and we reflect that the world is indeed a better place for people who can laugh at themselves.

Azrael Passing

I fell asleep at my desk, tired by what has seemed to be weeks of brain-strain. I dreamt that I woke, and a little figure about 10 cm tall stood next to the air-conditioner remote. It had the wings of a bird of prey, with a wingspan of about 20 cm. It also looked vaguely masculine, in the cold way that some guns have. It had too many limbs though, and I had the fleeting impression that it had too many eyes, although in fact it had none.

The little figure seemed to be forcing me to remember words from this poem. And it said, You have always wanted this power, and you have not known it. Now know. And the field that is ripe for harvest shall be aflame. This seemed, inexplicably and counter-intuitively, to chill me to the bone. I started, and awoke.

The frightening thing is that I am not entirely sure it was a dream.

=====

Edit: ah, this was only my 300th post here... tempus fugit.

Visual Acuity

There are many ways to see things. This makes some people see things that are not there. It even makes people see things that are there, but ought not to be - and of course, see things that are not, but should be. This is what beauty is all about.

There are too many plain girls and ugly guys simply because they cannot see that grace and chivalry outweigh fluff and prettiness. Yes, blondes have more fun; yes, men sometimes "don't make passes / at girls who wear glasses." But for a species whose visual acuity can detect the change of a single photon, and whose imagination populates a universe with endless ghosts and tortured ambitions, we can be pretty silly about deciding when not to see beauty - even when we can choose to see it.

Here I stand, a pleasantly ugly fellow of no great prospect and no high ambition. But God made me, and empowered me with the divine and controversial spark, a spark that defies the material and mundane and ignites high and peculiar creativity at will. And each of these - my brethren, my sisters - are likewise empowered, likewise able to be filled of an essence which can rewrite the meaning of life in a flash.

O take heart, my brothers and sisters; lift up your eyes! Raise the weak things of the earth against the great, shape the foolish things as weapons against the wise, celebrate the day of small things. The little instruments of profession and craft, given unto our willing hands, can make sanctuaries and citadels in a world which prefers to tear down and destroy. Go, go and read about Zerubbabel. And see, with blinding sight.

Wyvern

Here, for those who feel they are of insufficient resource when holding fast to tradition, is that which symbolises tradition to many.

But quite apart from such symbols being reassurance to the faithful, there is an element of the sanctity of truth. Whither truth, if it does not matter how expressed? If the right font is not an issue, if the right colours are not to be a matter of concern, why bother with the values and beliefs which stand beneath the flag?

Think on what the phrase to set a standard really means: it means that we firmly ground our banner, that it might not fall, or fail, or be reft from us. We set a standard in the ground, as we might set a pike to receive a charge. A single pike is a futile and cumbersome weapon. But a field of pikes is a terrifying thing. Even a mounted knight might quail against such a resolute and determined defence.

And so, I stand here. I set my standard, as I stand my ground. And I let the banner of the wyvern fly free, a challenge and a beacon of truth and light.

=====

Psalm 91

He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.

I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust."

Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare
and from the deadly pestilence.

He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

You will not fear the terror of night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,

nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
nor the plague that destroys at midday.

A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.

You will only observe with your eyes
and see the punishment of the wicked.

If you make the Most High your dwelling—
even the LORD, who is my refuge-
then no harm will befall you,
no disaster will come near your tent.

For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

You will tread upon the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

"Because he loves me," says the LORD, "I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.

He will call upon me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.

With long life will I satisfy him
and show him my salvation."

=====

And that is how we set a standard.

The Greater Trumps: (20) Imagination

The chalice hangs suspended over the lake. The lake ripples, but we do not know whether what comes forth will be the arm of a lady in white samite, brandishing a sword; or the afanc, roaring anger at being awakened in this age. Behind the chalice, or perhaps above, we see two curiously wise eyes - we cannot tell whether they belong to a man or a woman. The lake might be a river's mouth - we see it banked to the left and right, but cannot glimpse a farther shore.

The scene is too full of imagery, too full of potential, for anyone to see all the possibilities. But one thing is clear, from the wise eyes to the vanishing point of perspective, from the chalice and the ripples: this montage symbolises Vision and Possibility. It isn't the extravagant chance of the Wheel, nor the inner vision of the Hanged Man - it is the outward gaze, with too many things within its scope.

=====

It isn't always hardcore poetry. Sometimes, I'm affected by the power of song lyrics; especially those of Lennon and McCartney. Here are some lines from John Lennon's Imagine:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Of course, it's a somewhat secular utopia which is offered to us. It doesn't convince me, but it does make me think about the ideas which frame our humanity, and what lies beyond that frame.