We work so ahead to get ahead of the game; work half our lives until we’ve won. And then one day, we sit at the edge of our bed and think: Lord what have I done?

The day is short, the night is long.
Why do we work so hard to get what we don’t even want?

Man in a suit, comes home and kisses his babies goodbye. Daddy’s gotta go on a trip honey, oh no don’t you cry.
He’s gone for a week and then he’s home for a day. Well, pretty soon the babies won’t cry when daddy’s gone away.

The day is short, the night is long.
Why do you work so hard to get what you don’t even want?

You know we go to the mall and we go from store to store, yeah. Everybody seems to be wasting time until death walks through the door. And then you look at all your merchandise and you see. We’ve paid too high a price, you’ll see.

The day is short, the night is long.
Why do you work so hard to get what you don’t even want?
Why do you work so hard to get what you don’t even want?

All the Best,

Charles Knight

Great comments.

“The problems to avoid are many and a few that come to mind from your intro text: 1) many people are still in a struggle for survival, even in the wealthy “Land Of The Free” were (supposedly) freedom of expression is available and sacred; 2) survival isn’t always about economics but also has stronger social aspects related to personal relationships (ask anyone who committed suicide); 3) not all people in the world want freedom or can even recognize it; and 4) what gives anyone the authority to say they know how society (or parts of it) really should work? (ie: how democratic are your theories to be?)”

Totally agree with all of your points. I think I irresponsibly posted this before I could think out all of the angles (or write them out, because I was thinking about what you’ve written here…but failed to discuss it in this post).

“Compare contemporary corporations to those that existed before corporations had same-as-people constitutional rights and you may see how purpose is hardly beneficial to modern corporate America.”

I know…that system totally has to change. Totally. I don’t know how or if there is someone working on it, but a ‘person’ without compassion and only driven to increase wealth is a very very scary person.

“the very act of defining something reduces the ability of others to redefine it”

Totally. It’s so tempting, though…because I don’t want it to be misinterpreted. But I know, the very act of putting it out there opens it up to that…and it has…

“Maybe it’ll help if you first discuss the visions of Your World you feel could or should be before theorizing about the role of motivators like “Higher Purpose”.”

Great idea. I think I’ve discussed it so much offline that I’ve forgetten that I haven’t put it into context online. Thanks for that suggestion. I think it’s the missing ingredient here and what has caused much of the misunderstandings in the comments (as well as my knee-jerk defensiveness).

I’m glad that Chris Locke enlightened me about Ford. I didn’t mean to dismiss that concern. I do want to address these things. I just wasn’t in that head space at that time. I was still trying to understand other stuff. Ford was an aside to me…not as an example of someone who is great and had a HP, but provided a quote about being forthright about it. It was lazy for me not to dig deeper.

And when I say “WE live in a post-scarcity economy”, I don’t mean “WE” as in the entire world. I mean “WE” as in my little world of friends. I guess when I invoke the oversweeping ‘economy’, that is wrong. I didn’t think about how that might be interpreted. And maybe this is still naive, but I was saying…and actually in response to a conversation with a single mom on a shoestring budget (which I used to be) who said to me, “I don’t have the time to think about Higher Purpose, I live month to month.”…which made me start thinking about the fact that I’m preaching this and that and totally missed the fact that I have more time and resources to stand on my pulpit. Then I came across the world values map:

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.com/statistics/some_findings.html

and wrote this post. It wasn’t particularly well thought out, so I added an ‘Aside:’ to the title.

I certainly did not mean to imply that in this country, while some feast, others aren’t still in the survival mode. Nor did I mean to imply that there aren’t people in countries whose economies are still struggling that don’t have a HP or dedicate their lives to others. In fact, as per your example of Yunus, I’ve heard more examples of people with nothing that give everything to make a better community and world than those, like Evelyn starts to discuss in her fabulous post, who have way more, but talk about waiting for the right time to give (but often never get around to it).

But you know, Frank, I’m a really emotional, feeling, empathetic person and when people make judgements of me, I internalize them strongly. I know I should be stronger than that, but that’s part of the problem of being a ‘feeling’ person. I don’t have good defenses set up against personal criticisms. This comment helps me start to heal, so thanks.

I’ve met Tara and talked with her. I like her a lot. She’s quite bright. She’s taken a risk to create a marketing business fully along the lines Cluetrain sketches. Yes, she wrote some dismissive and (I think unintentionally) mean replies, she believes in a idea we all think is trendy and embarrassing, and she (like most of the population) didn’t know Henry Ford was an anti-Semite. But in the struggle between traditional, dehumanizing, stoopid marketing and humane, connected, enlightened marketing, Tara is waaay over on our side.

That goes along with your observation,Evelyn, “that she walks her talk around being about people….”

Here’s why I think the discord and tension around these few posts has been valuable: There are many assumptions that we make based on ideas we are given that we take at face value. A lot of this material is ginned up to support an existing structure that is rotten to the core. When we hear that Henry Ford was an anti-semite, we can’t be expected to say, “Oh wow, that changes my whole outlook,” but if we share this kind of information enough and question the value of assertions like “we live in a post scarcity economy,” then we are taking small steps toward a more informed world. If we don’t permit this clash of ideas, then the bullies will win, because they certainly aren’t shy about asserting their “needs.”

It’s nice to know that Tara is one of the good-guys. It gives me hope through her blog she will occasionally leave that comfort zone of “post scarcity” assumptions and help to open more eyes about what’s really going on in the world…

One of my dearest friends wants to also start a micro bank in some country he has yet to pick. His agenda for doing so is his heart felt desire to improve the human condition, in whatever ways are possible. His motivation isn’t driven by any purpose, higher or lower; rather, he’s come to his goal by many years of serious philosophical contemplation. I haven’t decided to contribute money yet but certainly wouldn’t do it out of any sense of purpose beyond enjoying that I can do it and getting yet another complication out of my life (money and (other) “friends” who expect you to give it to them). I’m not sure this Higher Purpose framework is useful; but I’ve heard my share of requests using some rather good ones.

Best,

Joey

I admire your (and all) efforts to develop a model for ideas that humans gravitate towards. Many of the arguments have been discussed for 150 years and are especially seen in the debate over democracy vs. socialism; theories on social psychology; and criticism of Keynesian economics.

The problems to avoid are many and a few that come to mind from your intro text: 1) many people are still in a struggle for survival, even in the wealthy “Land Of The Free” were (supposedly) freedom of expression is available and sacred; 2) survival isn’t always about economics but also has stronger social aspects related to personal relationships (ask anyone who committed suicide); 3) not all people in the world want freedom or can even recognize it; and 4) what gives anyone the authority to say they know how society (or parts of it) really should work? (ie: how democratic are your theories to be?)

Purpose always runs in the face of reality simply because purpose needs to be defined in language that can’t properly define things by creatures who can’t ever know the full and true impact of any action (you can’t retrospectively judge things in the present); thus, it is always doomed to fail or be corrupted and can rarely be dynamic. Compare contemporary corporations to those that existed before corporations had same-as-people constitutional rights and you may see how purpose is hardly beneficial to modern corporate America.

At an individual level, however you might define or frame the concept of “higher purpose, I suspect it’ll mostly equate to a false motivator which basically exercises group-mentality aspects of individuals and not, generally, free thinking aspects; after all, the very act of defining something reduces the ability of others to redefine it

Instead of directed motivation, I find being open, honest, and without deception (or hidden agendas) more than sufficient to live a happy life — for yourself and others. When honesty is present, actual motivation soon follows. People, institutions, or governments that fail to be open ultimately fail in other ways.

Honesty in words, actions, and intentions, as well as knowledge of oneself and empathy for others, all become a part of reality without any need for explanation. Though, I squirm at my own simpleminded terms used here.

Maybe it’ll help if you first discuss the visions of Your World you feel could or should be before theorizing about the role of motivators like “Higher Purpose”. Knowing the final vision might help you explain it to others

Bleh, this is awkward to proof read in an HTML form.

Best,

Joey

Grameen Bank? It all started with a conversation Yunus accidentally had with a woman in his neighborhood that needed a little change to buy materials for her bamboo stool making venture (so she didn’t have to go through the usurious middleman).

Most people – and I see it everyday – they are a very busy professor like Yunus. The difference is they have no time for idle chitchat with some lady on the corner.

I’ve watched the last post on HP & this one’s thread and knowing Tara personally, and knowing that she walks her talk around being about people more than the majority of people I know working in so-called ‘social’ media (as a friend says, “online community is an oxymoron”), I’m not heartened by what I see here. Mostly because what I seen offline is definitely someone that is following their thread of inspiration wherever it leads.

So Yunus gave the bamboo stool lady the money himself. One thing after another… yet it took years to unfold. This from a December 3, 2004 blog posts:

The first “loan” Yunus gave out was out of his own pocket to 42 people. Total cost: $27.

He went to banks to convince them to loan out money to these people on a regular basis. You saw the answers he got at the beginning of this story. [How can we lend money to poor people? They are not creditworthy. Our rules won't permit it. They cannot offer collateral, and such a tiny amount is not worth lending.] They wouldn’t lend money directly, so Yunu had sign off for the loans. “They warned me repeatedly that the poor people who receive the money will never pay it back.”

When they did pay him back, the bank manager then warned, “Oh, no, they’re just fooling you. Soon they will take more money and never pay you back.”

“And so it became a kind of contest between them and me… I came up with results they could not deny because it was their money I was giving, but they would not accept it becauase they are trained to believe that poor people are not reliable.”

“Finally I had the thought, Why am I trying to convince them? I am totally convinced that poor people can take money and pay it back. Why don’t we set up a separate bank?”

Grameen Bank has lent over $4.5B to date.