ox herding | learning | unlearning | sharing stories at @shelly_IoT creator and facilitator of Story Sapient
now
Joined August 2014
- Tweets634
- Following672
- Followers173
- Likes1.3K
"How you do anything is how you do everything." - unknown
Although it is presented as the "greatest how-to video on Earth", hidden in plain sight, the movie also provides an answer to the popular, but unbecoming question of "why".
Because becoming fully Human has always been more about the "how" than the "why".
youtube.com/watch?v=h3mRsvFm…
If I wanted to express it in religious terms, I'd say: We're sacrificing the flesh of kids to please a very demanding entity.
If I wanted to turn it into a water cooler small talk, I'd say: We're achieving and exceeding quarterly goals.
If I wanted to explain through scientific observations, I'd say: We are limiting the biological growth of the human nervous system in order to monetize the energy that could otherwise go into developing it, i.e. the energy of attention.
Take your pick.
Your choice will largely depend on your background and experience which can also be described as data organized and structured into stories by our mind so that we can act on them fast in our daily lives.
Storytelling is how we, as Homo sapiens, navigate our professional and social environments. This is also how we justify our decisions, internally.
However, not all stories are made equal. And their inequality stems from their contact with physical reality.
Some are more useful and relevant in navigating reality. Other are less useful and, depending on the conditions, even dangerous.
Some stories are an invitation to explore the reality of life. Other detach us from the experience of life.
Unfortunately, the religious and the corporate stories are proving to be less and less relevant and useful for our new socio-technological environment.
This doesn't mean they are not powerful stories worthy of respect for the role they have played. It just means they are no longer very useful to navigate this new environment and find solutions to novel problems that are not immediately obvious and are hard to observe and quantify.
We’ve come to identify ourselves so much with abstract ideas and stories that we fail to relate with the physical reality of our future - our kids.
I have to be honest - I’ve slightly simplified the available answers.
In reality, there are 8 billion more perspectives and an infinite number of stories that try to suggest explanations of the data and possible solutions to the perceived problem.
I can’t tell you what to choose. I'd feel dishonest.
But I can help you improve the quality of your individual and collective decisions by sharing what I’ve practiced, experienced, and learned on how stories influence our communication, cognition, and decision-making, especially when ignored or underestimated.
If we are to become less fragile to the negative effects of destructive stories and obtain the skills and confidence to tell new, constructive ones, we must approach storytelling and human communication as a hard skill and educate ourselves.
Men and women of business must lead by example.
As Whitehead observed:
“We must not fall into the fallacy of thinking of the business world in abstraction from the rest of the community. ... The behavior of the community is largely dominated by the business mind. A great society is a society I which men of business think greatly of their functions."
I guess this is also where I invite you to learn about my work on Story Sapient: storysapient.com/
Write me up and I'll tell you everything about the training and how I can help you and your team.
Andrea-Franco Candela retweeted
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem was developed by Austrian logician Kurt Gödel in 1931.
For a consistent formal system S capable of doing arithmetic, Gödel constructed a mathematical sentence G that effectively says:
“This sentence cannot be proved within system S.”
Now ask whether S can prove this sentence.
Suppose S proves G.
Then the system has proved a sentence saying that it cannot be proved.
That would make the system inconsistent.
Suppose S is consistent.
Then S cannot prove G.
But that is exactly what G says.
Therefore, viewed from outside the system, G is true, but it cannot be proved inside S.
That is the heart of Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem.
Andrea-Franco Candela retweeted
Grief is not just the loss of the person, it’s the loss of that particular way of getting access to reality.
Consider the following...
If you try to fill the void from personal loss with substitutes (drugs, rebound relationships, distractions, etc.) you will suffer.
You can actually end up traumatizing yourself.
But if instead you grow (so it's not so large in your psyche) and you reorient behind it…and it becomes a way in which you can look deeply into other people's suffering, you get to realize the depths of people that were otherwise not accessible to you.
In a similar way, if you deeply enough grieve nihilism, it becomes an aperture by which you can undergo the ability to see more deeply into the depths of reality...because what you have to do is you have to give up the clenching around the idea that reality is a thing or a substance.
