cross-posted from The Electric Mirror. I thought the Zaadz community might find this interesting, In his latest book, How to Re-Imagine the World: A Pocket Guide for Practical Visionaries, Anthony Weston presents advice on how to "think outside the box" in regards to social change. From the back cover,

Who says we can't change the world? In fact the world is already being transformed, right under our feet. Whole new social and political systems are becoming possible, from "re-localization" to electronically-enabled global democracy. Work, marriage, our relation to the natural world -- everything is changing in many ways at once. This book outlines a way to step up to the challenge: the way of creativity. Here you will find imaginative tools -- specific, focused, and shareable techniques to cultivate new ideas, to find new openings, to re-invent the world and prepare for both the best and the worst...

I suppose I had high hopes for this book. I'm not sure why, exactly; maybe because I liked the cover art. I don't know. But, unfortunately, I was a bit disappointed. Although the book isn't specifically about politics, Weston's progressivist ideals do shine through, which didn't really bother me. I was just disappointed with the fact that Weston doesn't really demonstrate how his advice could be adopted by anyone who does not share his political perspective, and that his intended audience is obviously limited to people who already agree with him. Also, much of the book seems not to offer advice on how to come up with new ideas, but instead advice on how to come up with ideas similar to the author's. However, the crux of what I object to in this book can be summed up in this excerpt:

Beneath the problems that often seem so "given" lie cultural norms and practices and ultimately whole worldviews. Our problems have contexts, backgrounds, roots. These in turn can be shifted and reconstructed. Problems can be circumvented or at least reshaped so that they arise in more manageable forms. Go deep. The word "radical" itself comes from the Latin "radix", root. For the most creative leverage we sometimes need to work at the roots.

My objection to this is subtle, but significant. Weston seems to be implying that the best way to deal with big problems is to destroy or alter the roots of the problem, which seems perfectly rational. However, I think that this is ultimately unwise. I don't think that uprooting cultural norms, practices, and worldviews solves problems because those cultural institutions are not analogous to weeds. Saying that uprooting our cultural institutions will solve our cultural problems is like saying that destroying or shifting the foundation of a house will fix the leaking roof. Granted, Weston did not say "destroy" or "uproot". He used the words "shift" and "reconstruct". But how can you reconstruct if you do not first deconstruct? And what exactly does "shift" mean? For example, is it possible to shift the roots of a tree to another location without first uprooting it? The way I interpret it, a "radical" is someone who calls for a return to the roots and a strengthening of the roots, not for an alteration of the roots. I'm all for thinking outside the box, but I am not in favor of discarding the box altogether. If you discard the box, what do you have left to think outside of? "The box" is our point of orientation, our roots. It is like our home. It is where we return to at the end of the day. It's like the idea of a "comfort zone". Venturing outside of one's comfort zone is important and necessary if one is to live a meaningful and fulfilling life, but you can't live your entire life outside of that comfort zone. At some point you have to have something to return to. This makes me think of the relationship between imagination and memory. It's hard to imagine a future that would be any different from the past if you don't remember what the past was like to begin with. Likewise, it's hard to imagine new ways of thinking, new "worldviews", without having an understanding of those of the past. As the saying goes, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." But even beyond repeating history, understanding the past is necessary in order to avoid re-inventing the wheel over and over again. In order to re-imagine the world, it is necessary to know how the world has already been imagined. Anyway, I think I may have gone off on a tangent. Overall, I think the book presents some interesting ideas on how to think about the future. I wouldn't call it "radical", but it certainly is a good reminder to continually ask, "what if?"

I made this short with some friends to submit to a small film festival put on by The Second City.  Alas, 'twas not accepted for the festival.  However, it was accepted by YouTube!  I hope you enjoy it.

Part 3 of our discussion about Joshua Bell is live.  And, in my opinion, it's the best podcast yet.  We even touch briefly on Ken Wilber's definition of art (for all you Wilber heads out there).  We also have a brand new blog platform, Wordpress!  Polysemy has bid Blogger adieu, and a paradigm shift of blog awesomeness has occurred. 

Also, don't tell anyone I told you, but a new Polysemy blog is about to launch soon soon soon.  I won't ruin the surprise, but I will say that it will be full of multimedia goodness, and very little text.  Yay for audio and video!

Part 2 of the Joshua Bell experiment discussion is up on the Woodshed.  Check it out!

This is from the song "Clam, Crab, Cockle, Cowrie" by Joanna Newsom, on her album "The Milk-Eyed Mender".  I'm not sure exactly what I like about.  It's a thinker, in a very mysterious and spacious way.  Anyway, here it is,

"There are some mornings when the sky looks like a road."
zaadz quote link.

Hey everybody!  The first ever Polysemy Podcast is up!  Produced by yours truly.  Check it out!
  It's a recording of a conversation between Matthew Dallman, Victoria Lansford, Thom Morgan, and myself about Joshua Bell playing at a Washington DC subway stop.

Ok, I went to the grocery store yesterday.  It wasn't a Whole Foods or any fancy grocery store like that, just a plain ol' mainstream grocery store.  I was in the produce section, and above each of the stands was a flat-screen tv hanging from the ceiling.  On each tv was some generic, 2-minute cooking show or something like that.  Something to make people buy more food, right.  Innocent enough. 

So, for a moment, I was behind one of these tv's, so I couldn't see the screen, but I could hear it.  It was some quick talk show kind of thing.  The topic seemed to be something like "how to be more effective at work".  A woman was talking to another about tips for the workplace, or something like that, and the first tip she gave was "smile".  Cool, smiling is good.  I have nothing against smiling.  But then she adds, "even if you don't feel like it."  Ok, I may disagree with this, but that's ok, no big deal.  Then, she explains why, "because when you smile, you actually set off a chemical reaction in your brain that makes you feel happy."  Well, I could argue with this, but maybe she has a point.  I find the quasi-scientific explanation of happiness to be a little irritating, but whatever. If people want to try to find happiness by smiling even though they feel like shit, then they're free to do that.  And I don't really care that much anyway.  I just want to get some food and go home.  

But then, she concludes with this line, "and studies have proven that happy people are more productive."  I couldn't believe what I had just heard.  "Studies have proven that happy people are more productive."  I wanted to shove a spoon into my eye.  "Studies have proven that happy people are more productive."  The assumtions on which this statement is based are so disgusting it makes me want to kill someone.

The idea that happiness is not an end in itself, but rather, a means to increase productivity makes me want to vomit.  I don't care how many "studies" have "proven" this.  What the hell is the point of living if happiness falls below productivity on the priorities list?  What is the point of productivity?  What exactly are we producing that is so important that happiness is secondary? 

Granted, the glorification of productivity is not an unpopular thing in modern society, especially in America.  There may even be some people reading this who don't understand why I'm getting so upset.  But, think about it.  When you are on your deathbed, are you going to be thinking, "at least I got a lot of stuff done"? 

What is the point of living?  Why are we here?  Is it simply to get things done?  Is the quantity of our accomplishments a measure of the quality of our lives?  Goddamnit! What the hell is going on?!

Ok, deep breath...  inhale... exhale... </rant>

Hello friends.  This post is for all my Boulder buddies.  I'm moving to Chicago in exactly one week, and I want to see all my Boulder friends before I go.  Drop me a line if you want to meetup.  There might be a small going-away party somewhere.  We'll see.

Walden by Henry David Thoreau, without a doubt.  I first read it (or selections from it) during my sophomore year of highschool, and that year I tried to replicate Thoreau's experiment in my own life (to the extent that I could while living in my parents house and attending school).  I tried to simplify, simplify, simplify as much as I could in as many areas of my life as I could, and I kept a journal, recording my reflections on my experience and my thoughts on Thoreau's words.

I also read some of Ralph Waldo Emerson's essays around that time and several times since then, but his work hasn't impacted me as much.  Emerson's thoughts, while powerful, are essentially abstract.  Thoreau is more concrete.  He walked his talk, and that's what inspires me so much.