hopelesshappiness.com

Last week I said, "Business relationships are built through market transactions using market currencies." I would like to extend that thought. Business relationships, market transactions, and market currencies were originally established to satisfy the needs of a community for basic consumable and durable goods; goods such as food, clothing, materials for housing/shelter, medicines, tools, etc. As quality of life seemed to improve by pooling resources via technology and specialization, individuals, families, and small tribes were suddenly no longer self-sufficient; the necessity of a market was born. Somewhere though in the evolution of the marketplace, it knotted itself, reversing the means and the ends in that originally the ends (a communal need for basic goods) was the driver behind the means (market transactions and market currencies), but today those same means not only drive the ends (consumer goods) but also define those ends by telling the consumer what goods and services are necessary; (or more accurately, telling us that all goods and services are necessary). In turn, over the centuries and millennia since the birth of the marketplace, we have slowly transitioned from 8 parts human / 2 parts consumer to 2 parts human / 8 parts consumer; (the numbers are illustrative and vary by individual, but from where I sit they seem, on the whole, pretty accurate). So market currencies not only dilute the human relationship (as noted last week), but they also dilute the human.

There are some that may not see the problem, and I guess that depends upon your perspective. If your Life goal is to accumulate stuff, there is no problem. ...I think there is a problem... it appears that the marketplace has brought us from human savage to civilized human to consumer drone. So what is next?

I ended last week's post with the following:

"The introduction of market currency changes Truth and cheapens Wisdom. In many arenas it will be difficult to stem the flow of market currencies, strengthen the viability of human currencies, and synergize the certainty of counterpart currencies, but as a starting point (and at the very least) we must know the difference."

It doesn't feel right (or practical) to suggest we turn the bus around, so once we are readily able to identify each currency and gain an awareness of the give-and-take amongst the varying currencies, how do we go about controlling, strengthening, and synergizing?

There appears to be no magic bullet (though I will continue to look), but as stated above it begins with education; we must learn (and teach) the differences between the currencies (market, human, and counterpart - see last week's post) so each individual can, in any given moment, know if they are a consumer (involved in a market transaction) or a human (participating in a human transaction). If we know our role we can then make a better-informed decision to continue or not, or to inject additional currency into the transaction. I believe when one has a choice, more often than not, one will choose to add human currency, thus strengthening human relationships. There is more potential for growth in a human transaction than there is in a market transaction.

One can determine the essence of a relationship (business or human) by carefully checking for the prevalence of market currencies. It sounds simple, but like Russian nested dolls some business relationships reside within human relationships which reside within higher order business relationships and on and on and on; and to further complicate matters, some business relationships paint on the face of a human relationship and then these painted-up hussies (and their gigolo counterparts) start procreating leaving behind superficial spawn that arouse feelings ranging from morbid curiosity to intoxicating attraction that confuse and bewitch to a point where Truth has changed and Wisdom has cheapened - Damn Dolls!

It is difficult to know the Truth of any relationship that deals in 'any' quantity of market currency. Last week I listed market currencies as "including money, power, influence, marketable goods and services transacted impersonally, policy and procedure, incentives, and consideration for the greater good." It is up to each individual to determine what is meant by 'any quantity of market currency.' How much influence or power is too much? How many rules before we begin to trip over them? If these layers of market currencies are relatively thin or few compared to the human currencies then perhaps it is predominantly a human relationship. The mistake we cannot make is to confuse words with actions; human currencies (identified last week as "including consideration for the individual, productive two-way communication, emotional interaction, trust, compassion, understanding, responsibility, respect, and goodwill") should trump pretty talk. If we study actions and behaviors to interpret the words (as I did in this post), and ask lots of questions from a fortified position of doubt and uncertainty, then we are less likely to be fooled by shallow rhetoric.

So to summarize: if we educate in order to recognize and understand the currencies by asking questions and studying behaviors, then one may identify the transaction or transactions (market or human), and from there better define the essence of the relationship (business or human) ... Right? ...maybe. (I know I am repeating myself) but as market currencies continue to evolve (specifically policy and procedure, incentives, power, and influence), it is more and more difficult to differentiate between market and human transactions.

I am in a quandary; lost amongst the Russian nested dolls, seemingly unable to stem their flow of procreation. The only suggested resolution I have come up with, and keep returning to, is education; and seeing it alongside the enormity of the global marketplace is (quite honestly) intimidating and discouraging. I can't just walk outside and poke Earth in the eye to get its attention, yet that is what this fells like.

Russian nested dolls, painted-up hussies and their gigolo, spawn of consumerism, poking Earth in the eye, a speeding bus; I have noticed that the greater my uncertainty and/or perceived weakness in the proposed resolution, the more I tend to use visual analogies to emphasize and clarify the problem; I guess in the active hope that others may better understand and work with me. So why not one more visual: if we do not stem the flow of market currencies soon, we may one day see (as suggested in the work of fiction 'Cloud Atlas' by David Mitchell) corporate logos on the wings of butterflies and advertising projected on the face of the moon. We already have temporary and permanent tattoos as advertising and parents attempting to sell the naming rights to their unborn children. I'm not sure which question is more relevant - Where will it stop? or; Will it stop? For me, the greatest tragedy is the current degradation and continued erosion of the human relationship and of the individual human.

Last week I made the following observation:

On a broad scale, (for example a bureaucracy), our basis for reason is not right and wrong; it is not fairness; it is not justice; it is not ethical behavior; it is varying combinations and degrees of money and power; power in turn, being determined by money and/or one's position of influence. And once one has tasted financial success and/or power, it is difficult for that individual (or organization) to think in any terms other than what he, she, or they believe to be the greater good; beliefs tainted by power that tend to lose sight of the individual. This is sad.

Earlier tonight I posted 'Concierge Happiness' where I expressed my thoughts on the growing practice of concierge medicine which attempts (from my perspective) to infuse market reasoning into a circumstance it does not belong.

These thoughts (above) led me to the following thoughts (below).

I believe that market transactions should trade in market currencies including money, power, influence, marketable goods and services transacted impersonally, policy and procedure, incentives, and consideration for the greater good.

I believe that human transactions should trade in human currencies including consideration for the individual, productive two-way communication, emotional interaction, trust, compassion, understanding, responsibility, respect, and goodwill.

Human transactions also trade in counterpart currencies including fear, manipulation, disrespect, distrust, cruelty, indifference, disdain, insensitivity, avoidance, scorn, rejection, and the seven (pride, anger, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, and sloth) deadly sins. There is a natural gravitational attraction between these counterpart currencies and market currencies.

I believe that human currencies can and should find their way into market transactions, but I do not believe market currencies have any place in human transactions.

I believe that market transactions are impersonal and emotionless. It is fairly difficult to transact strictly on a market basis, yet it is fairly convenient to use market reasoning to explain an impersonal, emotionless human transaction.

I believe that human transactions include any human interaction that involves the sharing of any personal or private information or any purposeful action that foreseeably impacts the personal well-being of any individual.

I believe that casual human transactions can appear to consist strictly of human currencies by ignoring their counterpart currencies, but I believe that (at least) an occasional smattering of these counterpart currencies is unavoidable. A consistently open, dynamic exchange of human currencies and an active, respectful acknowledgment of the inevitability of their counterpart currencies will add meaning and depth to a human transaction.

Additionally, if the stated or implied intent of a specific set of circumstances is to create or maintain a positive human transaction and someone attempts to corrupt or short-circuit the intent by utilizing money, power, influence, or a claim of a greater good, the integrity of the human transaction is threatened. Any attempt to degrade and devalue a human transaction by utilizing market currencies, should be thwarted.

I believe the human relationships that define human transactions include (the obvious) family, friends, close neighbors, associates in selected social organizations, and trusted co-workers; and (based on the definition above) must also include many employer - employee circumstances, and many professional services including doctor - patient, attorney - client, and even elected official - constituent.

Granted, some of the given 'human transaction' examples already involve a market transaction, (such as employer - employee relationships and professional services) but to allow an additional influx of market currencies will only further dilute the human relationship.

Think about the following five examples:

1. Your car won't start so you ask a friend for a ride to work and they oblige. You are thanking them for their kindness, (and feeling all warm and fuzzy), and then they ask you for $5 to help with the gas.
2. The oldest profession (prostitution) dehumanizes, degrades, cheapens, and demeans both the parties involved and the act.
3. Your employer (in the person of your immediate supervisor) appeals to your goodwill and sense of responsibility to 'go the extra mile' and your supervisor (as a result) selfishly basks in the glow of success, while you are left to do your job.
4. Many bureaucracies shake your hand (with one hand) and smile while picking your pocket (with the other hand) for hidden fees, service charges, and other business courtesies.
5. Your Doctor, (with whom you have shared many intimate and personal details over the years), is suddenly soliciting an additional fee for the privilege of his services, creating an exclusive 'members only' patient list.

Human relationships are built through human transactions using human currencies and reacting to (or initiating) their counterpart currencies.

Business relationships are built through market transactions using market currencies.

What we mistake as a Mixed (Human and Business) relationship is in actuality a layering of human and business transactions, (and their associated human, counterpart, and market currencies), of which we interpret the most recent, the most memorable, and/or the thickest layer or layers to define the essence of the relationship.

The introduction of market currency changes Truth and cheapens Wisdom.

In many arenas it will be difficult to stem the flow of market currencies, strengthen the viability of human currencies, and synergize the certainty of counterpart currencies, but as a starting point (and at the very least) we must know the difference.

Following is my interpretation of a notice received from my Doctor this week:

Dear Patient:

You are a commodity; that is - an article to be used for trade leading to profit. I will (as much as I can) couch this in the utilitarian terms of a greater good, and I will (as closely as I can) follow the letter of the AMA ethical mandate for 'continuity of care' but the bottom line remains that you now have to pay to play.

For a nominal yearly fee you will become one of a select few (less than 20 percent of my current patient base) that I will generously allow to remain under my care. This will improve our business relationship by guaranteeing next day appointments, longer visits, more thorough examinations, and a greater focus (and this-time-I-really-mean-it attitude) toward preventive care and wellness services. Of course we have corrupted any previously established respect or goodwill by creating this market transaction, but the tradeoff is worthwhile: you can see more of me sooner, and I can work less for more money.

Please ignore the hypocrisy in the fact that your insurance will not recognize this fee and your Flex Spending Account cannot be used to pay it. I know in the past I have only allowed treatments approved by the Gods of Insurance, but you have the unique opportunity to snub your nose in their general direction by coloring outside their lines. Let's show them who's boss.

Some may say that by reducing your general health and well-being to the single market-driven question of 'who can pay?' I am ignoring morality, eroding personal values, and redefining justice. I maintain that the market has simply become the great moral equalizer ridding us of extraneous considerations and successfully widening the gap between those deserving of this good fortune and everyone else. You, my friend and future business associate, are deserving.

Yours Truly,

President and CEO
Doctor-Patient Mercantile and Trade

OBSERVATION: On a broad scale, (for example a bureaucracy), our basis for reason is not right and wrong; it is not fairness; it is not justice; it is not ethical behavior; it is varying combinations and degrees of money and power; power in turn, being determined by money and/or one's position of influence. And once one has tasted financial success and/or power, it is difficult for that individual (or organization) to think in any terms other than what he, she, or they believe to be the greater good; beliefs tainted by power that tend to lose sight of the individual. This is sad.

There is a stack of wood in my yard. This week I kicked it in frustration, and a hefty log rolled off, bruising my leg. Friedrich Nietzsche said "The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper." I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Nietzsche. I believe my bruise added experience which contributed to wisdom. Last week I got angry and expressed frustration toward two individuals, one of whom understood and apologized, thus clearing the air, adding experience, and contributing to wisdom. The other individual wanted to fight; but I would argue that this also added to experience and contributed to wisdom in that I learned to consider the difference between one who is capable of reason and a block of wood.

Delirium: 'a more or less temporary disorder of the mental faculties, as in fevers, disturbances of consciousness, or intoxication, characterized by restlessness, excitement, and/or delusions.' By this definition, I cannot think of a circumstance when delirium (to some degree) does not accompany anger; or for that matter, any emotional reaction. I realize now that I have stated the obvious. Nonetheless, it is a reminder I want to explore. This (for me) solidifies my disagreement with Nietzsche's quote above.

I have recently discussed the necessity of a personal balance of transcendental and empirical. In the same sense, I do not believe that true learning and growth can take place without some emotive rationality. One must recognize, acknowledge, and fully feel the emotion, (and in some circumstance express the emotion), before being able to act rationally upon the emotion. To subdue emotions constricts the range of possible, rational response. Though once fully felt, to control emotional expression or reaction keeping it from the realm of irrational response, can be difficult.

Side note: 'emotive rationality' sounds like a phrase Dr. Spock (from Star Trek) might spout, and though it is an admirable concept, I also realize that irrational response (while perhaps not favorable) is at times unavoidable and still maintains a potential for adding to one's Wisdom.

Delirium by definition is a pathology, implying abnormal behavior. Yet I believe many (probably most, if not all) of us can recall a time we have been caught up in 'a moment' (of joy, fear, sadness, ecstasy, anger, disgust, serenity) when/where we have exhibited this pathology. Rather than suppress this state, I believe we should cultivate it, learning to (beyond the moment) react rationally. What would Life be otherwise without an experience of intoxicating love; or contempt for an injustice; or a temporarily delusional sense of optimism; or occasional, short-term melancholia; or a rare moment of delirious happiness. These 'abnormalities' help to define our reality and should not be held in check by an illusion of constant happiness or an expected sense of decorum.

I recently ran across a description of the musical rhythmic pattern 'clave' typically found in Afro-Cuban music. David Byrne in his book 'How Music Works' states that "much Latin music has a framework referred to as the clave (the key), which sometimes isn't even played or audibly articulated by any one instrument..." and he goes on to exclaim, "what a beautiful concept that is: the most important part is invisible!" I propose that emotion is to Life as rhythm is to music and the ideal (clave) invisibility can be attained by practicing emotive rationality. Emotionally, most of us will continue to clumsily oscillate along a spectrum of 'slow waltz to strident death metal' - unable to consistently keep the beat; but one can aspire...

Alexander the Great said, "If all were of one mind, the cosmos would stand still." I believe he was encouraging evolution through doubt, disagreement, and questioning, and not predicting the degree of specialization so prevalent in (it seems) every industry and corridor of today's Society; a specialization that makes it appear we are all as far away from 'one mind' as is possible. I believe this appearance to be deceiving and I will come back to this point toward the end of the post, but first I want to consider specialization by looking at some examples.

Today many of us find it difficult (if not impossible) to see the bigger picture because we are so overwhelmed by the demands of our individual responsibilities. I don't believe this aids in our overall learning and growth as intended, though it does (in many cases) add to the quantity of knowledge and/or output. An example: a trip to an orthopedic group 2 to 3 years ago resulted in a neck specialist noting a bulging disc 'not bad enough to warrant invasive procedures' so a nerve specialist was consulted who did not see 'serious' nerve issues but did say the MRI showed a 'slight' tear in the rotator cuff, resulting in a visit to the shoulder specialist who said the tear was not deserving of surgery at this time and recommended a physical therapist. Finally the physical therapist was able to see the connection from neck to shoulders to arm pain (which I could see in the mirror) and recommended specific exercises to alleviate the melding pain from these various 'not-so-serious' ailments. The exercise helped, but what is fascinating to me is that these three educated, intelligent doctors apparently could not see (or refused to look and/or communicate) beyond their specific area of expertise. Each ailment exacerbated each other ailment and it took me weeks into months (and who knows how many dollars) to adequately understand this.

I could give examples from business as well. I have seen many variants of Operations people tripping over Human Resources who were battling Training and Development who did not understand Research and Marketing who looked down on the Sales force who felt they weren't supported by Operations... and on and on it goes. And the saddest part is that frequently everyone is right - from their unique, specific point of view.

Another example: a recent perusal of a major state university's web site revealed "More Than 280 Degree Programs" offered. From Turfgrass Management to Peace Studies to Urban Forestry to Family and Lifespan Development, it is another indication of the funnel effect on individual learning and growth. Don't get me wrong; the subject matter of these majors is relevant (we should all pursue a degree in Peace Studies), but the question remains - is this degree of specialization also restrictive? Does it keep us from doubting and questioning, and does it prevent a balancing of the technological, empirical, knowledge-based aspects of our evolution? A balancing perhaps better served by a broader, big-picture perspective that addresses transcendental truths (unknowable certainties) and spirituality (unknowable uncertainties). If you have been following recent thought, you know I am not advocating organized religion; I am advocating individual growth through uncertainty and balance.

We are not at all far away from 'one' mind. The depth of expertise and specialization fools us into believing we are each independent and autonomous, yet if we look closely, we see that in many ever-increasing ways we have each simply become a single neuron in a single mind of humanity that reflects our culture's narcissism and illusion of happiness. We are too close to 'one mind' for comfort as this 'Way' will only lead to stagnation, catatonia, and a slow, smelly rotting from within. Again, I am advocating individual growth through individual uncertainty and individual balance, which in turn will inspire a dynamic, contentious productivity that will advance the whole. When we do not (on our own) find this mutually beneficial, communal harmony - when an individual or collective imbalance becomes cumbersome - I believe that balance finds us.