Let others play with “strategy” and “tactics” and “management”. Purpose is the game of champions.
– from the book Purpose: The Starting Point of Great Companies
by Nikos Mourkogiannis
The concept of Higher Purpose has grown from an inkling of a gut feeling for me to a full-blown important meme for what I’m thinking…even more important than embracing the chaos.
As I’ve said before, this is not your mission or vision statement. It is not akin to Guy Kawasaki’s mantra. It’s not an exercise in exploiting people’s desire to believe in something. Hugh Macleod comes close with his statement, “The market for something to believe in is infinite,” but even that leaves open the door to the creation of something to believe in.
Nikos Mourkogiannis, in his book about Purpose opens his first chapter telling a very personal story about all of the women in his village being gunned down for standing by their principles. He promised himself from that day forward that he would live a life driven by purpose. He would continue to live a life driven towards freedom for all. His conviction is strong throughout the book, although I believe he idolizes the inauthentic ‘freedom’ brought on by loads of capital a little too much, not quite examining the costs that go with it, but his premise is entirely compelling.
He looks at a cross-section of American business and compares those business leaders with and without Purpose, some of them very open about their Purpose (like Henry Ford, who, on trial in 1914 argued “that businesses run solely for shareholder profit would ultimately make less money than businesses run for Purpose.” [p.26], and Warren Buffet). What he sees is that Purpose is the differentiating factor between a business that is good and one that is great…and a movement that is successful and one that is legendary. It’s the ‘next level’. That je ne sais quoi. Mojo.
I can tie this strongly back to my strong affinity for Marcus Buckingham’s ideas on leadership as well. Marcus Buckingham’s leaders aren’t those who aim to please, who are filled with empty confidence, who read ‘leadership books’ and regurgitate the lessons within them. No, Buckingham’s leaders are driven towards a greater vision. The successful ones articulate it in meaningful ways that people can get behind. Their passion for making the world a better place is infectious, but they also guide people towards the end in simple, easy to follow steps. They don’t try to solve everything, just something.
In one chapter, Mourkogiannis mentions the idea of a ‘Community of Purpose’. I haven’t quite finished the book, so I don’t know if he actually expands on what he means there, but when I heard the phrase, my struggle with Community as well as Higher Purpose in the context of making a living all of a sudden came crashing together in a way that made perfect sense. You don’t create communities around web apps or products or movies or even ideas…community is born around Purpose. The movies (like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’) and web apps (like Flickr) and events (like BarCamp) are merely the tools that help us find one another…that articulate what we already believe in. They make it simple for us to convene around those ideas and give us a point of reference to recognize one another.
They are our tribal markings. The more exact the Purpose is and the more clearly it is articulated, the more likely we are to connect.
Thus, saying your web app is for everyone makes it excruciatingly difficult for a person who uses it to know that their neighbour using it has anything in common with them at all. Designing a web app for elementary school teachers comes closer. Designing a web app to help elementary school teachers take their boring curriculums and turn them easily into really engaging lesson plans that will get kids interested in learning again is highly purposeful and will strike up powerful connections between the school teachers using it. If it does it amazingly well, you’ve got yourself the online version of the next Sesame Street.
Higher Purpose is powerful, but only if true. Ad hoc-ly choosing a Higher Purpose or sitting in a boardroom trying to brainstorm it is ridiculously fruitless and will result in really poor results. Similarly, having a true Higher Purpose, then waffling to be ’safe’ or get inline with investor requirements will also result in poor outcomes. It’s not really a Higher Purpose when nobody else will get behind it.
February 4th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I’m not sure I have any feelings of higher purpose. For the foreseeable future, my life is filled with mundane things. I want to have enough to get by and my thoughts are focused on that.
I work on data mining algorithms and machine learning. I think these could be used to develop products that significantly lessen the feelings of information overload that can occur. An RSS aggregator that can’t do anything beyond listening entries in reverse chronological order is dropping the ball in my view. So, suppose someone like me works hard to produce something that makes people feel a little less overwhelmed, a little more in control of their lives. Then I’ve made the world a slightly better place for those people.
That’s the most I think you can hope for with technology. Many products that make life slightly better together make life quite a bit better, which leaves more mental energy for things that really matter, like relationships and family.
To fool yourself into thinking that you’re doing anything more than providing peace of mind or convenience is ridiculous.
February 4th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Tara: Congratulations on this. I suspect a lot of people will find it hard tp grasp and accept. I was one of those involved in communes/communities during the sixties, we had a vision/purpose and we did create communities that worked despite your comments. There was one in Toronto we created to be a place for members of the Toronto Humanist Association to meet and that one worked until we moved away me to the U.S. others whereever. Another in Washington D.C. where we provided a place for anti vietnam activists to live while being in D.C. for demonstrations. Did we fail no more than a million businesses that folded for lack of capital. I have no regrets because my purpose was to start trying to make this worlda little better maybe help end war. We certainly did our little bit to end the Viet Nam war.
Yeah I agree purpose is in one way the be all and end all of our reason for life for me the purpose is to help anyone who is interested to livea fuller life. I freely admit I don’t know what your fuller life would be but cab I help.
Best Wishes
Roger
February 4th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
You are on a tear Tara!
Fantastic post. I have one issue/ question. I think I thought communities were formed out of interests. This says out of purpose.
Dictionary definitions follow, but I feel confused now, as to why someone feels part of a community. It could be both, or either. Purpose suggests to me suggests a desire to lead and change, but without those who feel interest, who is there to follow the leader? I think we need both to form a full community. ( you can lead )
Interest:
1. the feeling of a person whose attention, concern, or curiosity is particularly engaged by something: She has a great interest in the poetry of Donne.
Purpose:
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I would assume that purpose implies interest automatically. However, interest covers the spectrum (could be just a conversation…doesn’t make a community).
February 4th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Hah … so ‘interests’ are the lurkers.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
That’s awesome, Roger. Don’t get me wrong. Of course I don’t believe that communes didn’t work…I merely meant (in a previous post) that they weren’t always happy, smiley, shiny people being happy, shiny people all of the time.
there are always emotions involved and some misunderstandings. Maybe yours was more idyllic? 
I have a fuller life. A higher purpose. Already.
I want to change what we value the most as a society (not as individuals). I want to value purpose and human relationships, not money.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
That’s sad for you. Sorry to hear this. Good luck!
February 4th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Henry Ford? You gotta be kidding me. Henry Ford was Hitler’s inspiration for the Holocaust. Even had a full lenght portrait of Ford hanging over his desk in the Third Reich. Henry Ford bought out a newspaper for the sole purpose of reprinting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, long known to be a forgery, along with four years worth of the most poisonous antisemitic spew you can imagine. Google Ford Protocols Elders Zion and you’ll end up on some very active neo-Nazi sites. How “mojo” is that?
February 4th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Uh Chris … Ford was born in 1863, and died shortly after WW2. I am sure you have a point, but I think you are missing Tara’s. Take it elsewhere.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Wait a minute…and this is where loads of people get this wrong, too. Some Higher Purposes are totally unpopular (and sometimes jerkish).
Think George W. Bush. The man, if nothing else, had a Higher Purpose.
Sorry. I didn’t say that everyone is going to get along with their Higher Purposes.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Thanks Colin. I don’t mind descent.
Some Higher Purposes may be what others call ‘evil’. Hitler was popular because he had one.
Now…to go further into this…a Higher Purpose that hurts others will eventually implode (like Bush). But when it comes to having one…it isn’t always cool.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Oh, and digging a little deeper, I see that Mourkogiannis also has Tom Watson in his Purposeful lineup. While you’re googling Ford, try this one: Thomas Watson IBM Holocaust. Watson was decorated by Hitler and wore his Nazi medallions proudly right up to when war was formally declared by the US. IBM technicians were servicing IBM equipment inside the death camps. If these are two of his examples of being “purpose-driven,” I would suggest that the *motives* for that purpose should be examined a bit more closely. To that end, here are some credible references:
Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate by Neil Baldwin
IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation by Edwin Black
February 4th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
“If these are two of his examples of being “purpose-driven,” I would suggest that the *motives* for that purpose should be examined a bit more closely.”
Right. As I said previously, purpose isn’t necessarily universally ‘good’.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I won’t choose get into the Bush thing. But yes the higher purpose point does not have to agree with everyone … its just powerful. Examples exist on all sides of political fences, but elsewhere too. I think this validates the concept.
- Tony Blair
- Bob Dylan
- Winston Churchill
- Neil Young
- Curt Cobain
- Hugo Chavez
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
- John Edwards
- Pierre Trudeau
February 4th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
“Take it elsewhere.”
Colin, you ignorant slut. What possible relevance do Henry Ford’s dates of birth and death bring to this? None. Hitler personally thanked Ford for the inspiration he had provided for the “Final Solution.” You don’t want to hear about that? I understand. But tough.
“As I said previously, purpose isn’t necessarily universally ‘good’.”
Tara, yes, but this book is invoking some sense of high moral/ethical… well, Purpose, and the people it covers are being held up as exemplars. This is from Palgrave Macmillan, the publisher:
“In Purpose, world-renowned thought leader Nikos Mourkogiannis turns the entire idea of leadership on its head and shows that the choice between values and success is no choice at all. Mourkogiannis argues that companies must satisfy the need for purpose —- a set of values that defines an organization and inspires and motivates its employees. Rather than organization and structure, ideas are what cause companies to go from good to great. Drawing on examples from across multiple industries, Mourkogiannis demonstrates how a strong purpose is the essential first step toward lasting success.”
And this is from the Table of Contents:
Part II: Great Stories of Purpose
4 Tom Watson’s Passion for Discovery
5 Warren Buffett and the Excellence of Financial Artistry
6 Sam Walton’s Altruistic Commitment to the Customer
7 The Heroic Purpose of Henry Ford and Siegmund Warburg
On that same
publisher’s page there are many dozens of glowing reviews for the book, yet not one mention that at least two of these “great stories of purpose” were about men who were, not to put too fine a point on it, scum — a point we forget at our great peril. Business loves to decouple any sense of ethical responsibility from its constant effort to be perceived as deserving a stake in some moral high ground. But you can’t have it both ways. If your Purpose — as in the Ford and Watson cases — entails destroying other people because of their race, then you’re complicit in genocidal murder, not someone to be held up as a hero and moral example.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“Named in a 2001 Financial Times Group survey as one of the “top 50 business thinkers in the world,”
hmmmmm
Lets take this to your blog – I enjoy a good debate, but its not Tara’s point.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Sad for me?
Precisely what are you getting at here, with these writings vaguely on the topic of purpose/community? Could you, in one sentence, state precisely what your thesis is here?
February 4th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
““The market for something to believe in is infinite,” but even that leaves open the door to the creation of something to believe in….”
Hey I never said it was easy
February 4th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Thanks Hugh …
February 4th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Just some guy…
I hardly think I’m vague.
Thesis: If you don’t have a Higher Purpose, how do you expect anyone else to rally behind what you are doing?
or
If you want others to believe in you, you have to believe in something.
p.s. I was being ironic…I think you do have a higher purpose, silly.
February 4th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Chris.
Well, now that we are down to name calling…
I’m surprised, although I know that there are always certain touch points for everyone. Nobody here, and especially Colin, said anything to negate the enormity of the implications of your comments. Yes.
I don’t know about publishers garbage here (haven’t read it) and I haven’t even finished the book. I was pretty interested that there was/is a book written on the subject already and was paying credit to it. I came across it in a “if you like this, you may like this” thing on Amazon and the title attracted me. Yes, I bought a book for it’s cover. I haven’t formed an opinion on the entire book yet, but his discussion on Purpose is an interesting one, even if his subjects are flawed (and I think they are flawed for a whole other reason).
But, as Colin puts it, your anger misses the point.
I don’t think that this post ever held up Ford or Watson as moral or heroic examples. Perhaps the book does. I haven’t seen evidence of that yet.
But this isn’t a debate on what is moral or ethical. I’m the last one to determine that one. I suck in that fight.
February 4th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
LOL. Exactly. Some may think it is, though. The rascals.
February 5th, 2007 at 12:12 am
“If you want others to believe in you, you have to believe in something.”
Well, of course.
The thing is, what is it you, for instance, believe? What is your higher purpose?
When it comes to a web product, I don’t see how it’s possible to do better than “I’ll make people’s too-busy lives less hectic and stressful. I will strive to build well-designed products that work as they are supposed to reasonably on time and within a reasonable budget. I will treat colleagues the way they deserve to be treated; I will expect great things of people and challenge them to grow while at the same time recognizing that no one’s perfect; I will understand my users’ needs; I will be willing to modify my course of action in light of significant new information.” What more can you ask for?
February 5th, 2007 at 12:14 am
As to “name calling,” I suppose those too young to remember SNL (“Jane, you ignorant slut!”) are doomed to watch re-runs. I thought I was rather restrained, actually.
More substantively, I dug deeper and found this page, which includes an excerpt of the book. Note that this bit I am quoting about Henry Ford falls under the author’s category “HEROISM: POWER’S EFFECTIVENESS.” It is nothing short of amazing to me that he ends by mentioning fascism, en passant, without also “mentioning” Ford’s very concrete connection with the most palpable example of that political “philosophy” the world has ever seen. Whether or not you want to “debate what is moral or ethical,” Nikos Mourkogiannis’s elitist claptrap has everything to do with such thorny issues. Get a load of this…
BEIGN QUOTE
Heroic Purposes such as Ford’s gain their force from the Nietzschean intuition that only some people are truly free and have the capacity to lead. If you are one of these people, you realize you must exercise your willpower and your influence. If you are not, you realize you should follow those who are capable of leadership.
Writing in Germany in the late nineteenth century, Nietzsche was repelled by what he perceived to be the mediocrity of the democratic age – he longed for rule by an aristocracy of great men. “The [French] Revolution made Napoleon possible,” he wrote. ‘“That is its justification. We ought to desire the anarchical collapse of the whole of our civilization if such a reward were to be its result.” For him, Christianity and compassion should be shunned: they tame great men like Napoleon, and may tempt us to think there is no fundamental difference in value between the elite and the masses. These ideas have resulted in a “dwarfed, almost ludicrous species . . . something sickly, mediocre, the European of the present day.”
Courage, pride and firmness are raw materials of the Nietzchean leader, but the necessary level of these characteristics is found in relatively few human beings. These men are the leaders who can command those without the necessary character. It is easy to see how this moral theory could be used to justify the extremes of fascism. But in less violent forms, adulation of willpower and command also justified the bureaucratic structures emerging as Nietzsche was writing.
END QUOTE
February 5th, 2007 at 12:16 am
oh sorry. the page is here:
http://www.purposethebook.com/aboutthebook/excerpt
February 5th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Not much more, some guy….not much more.
My Higher Purpose? (I’m guessing you’ve just got here
) I’m afraid it’s grown…
To change the idea that money and size are the only measures of success.
To stop the fact that a small number of powerful, rich organizations can change policy to improve their own lives (and their pocketbooks).
To improve the odds for the liveliehood of independents by encouraging building blocks (like inexpensive infrastructure to run a small business on – office space, networking opportunities with other small businesses, inexpensive software, access to information on how to run a small business).
Your goal actually aligns quite nicely with ours (Citizen Agency).
February 5th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Ack. Got it. Your point is loud and clear, Chris.
Not anything to do with this conversation, but loud and clear.
February 5th, 2007 at 12:32 am
In fact…this is akin to a Monty Python sketch of sorts.
Person 1: “How do you like my hat?”
Person 2: “Your socks don’t match!”
Person 1: “Yes, well, I didn’t ask about my socks. What do you think of my hat?”
Person 2: “Those socks! Those socks! Couldn’t you afford a new pair?”
Person 1: “Yes, well, now that you mention it, the socks are offensive, but I can’t do much about that right now seeing that we’re in a hat store, not a sock store. So, then, I have to find out whether this hat suits me. You see, I have a hat party to attend this evening…”
Person 2: “Let me tell you. Red socks do NOT go with orange trousers. They will never do.”
Person 1: “Well, thanks anyway, I’ll ask someone else.” (goes off to talk to another person)
Person 2: (follows after Person 1) “Didn’t you hear me? I hate your socks!”
and it goes on…
February 5th, 2007 at 1:00 am
“Not anything to do with this conversation…”
I give up.
It’s a *lovely* hat, Tara.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:43 am
“The market for something to believe in is infinite.” ~Hugh Macleod
There are ears upon which irony falls as seed on stony ground.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:32 am
All this high level stuff aside, I am very uncomfortable around anyone who has a “higher purpose.” The dysfunctional, the delusional aspects of achieving that perspective make the person who believes in his own higher purpose a danger to others.
“Purpose” is static, inflexible, perverse.
hey… while I was wandering around trying to get a handle on why someone would think that the best part of the French revolution was the rise of Napoleon and the re-birth of the French aristocracy, I ran into an old arms-length mentor, a guy I’ve been impressed with since I first ran into him in the mid-eighties: Ichak Adizes. Say what you like about Ichak, his Vision/Mission/Values model, his approach to corporate change management is the best thing to arrive on the change management scene since the Guillotine. Here’s a joke he tells:
February 5th, 2007 at 6:02 am
The “Take it elsewhere” guy is a perfect example of totalitarian “higher purpose”: to stifle debate by commanding dissent to Silencio! if you don’t agree with him.
I’m afraid that “higher purpose” goes no “higher” than the dictatorial Super Ego and it’s sadistic relishings in the name of grandiose conceptual fluff.
How can we separate “higher purpose” from “ulterior motive” and “hidden agenda”?
How many have killed and exploited for their “higher purpose”?
I don’t trust those who have “higher purposes”. When I work on a web design or usability test, it’s not for some “higher purpose” of making the World Wide Web a better and easier place, because my client is not paying me to do that. He just wants a site that will sell or market something.
Higher Purposes, unfortunately based on convenient abstractions, and always hurting one group or other, often can befuddle the very real problems we face.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:16 am
“I want to value purpose and human relationships, not money.”
Disclosure: I just want the cash.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but most all of the ‘purpose’ and ‘purposes’ described above are done within the context of their manifestations within market economics.
Can we please call a different tune to this dance?
Market economics is an unnatural act – i.e., not a game the whole family can play, and one that’s particularly hard on children and old people. Granted, it’s the current and predominant lens we see the world through, but to be anything other than hard on it – ala’ Chris Locke’s comments – leads almost immediately to the disasterous consequences that he articulates above.
Markets are brainless, mindless things that do just one thing well – grind towards efficiency. And those who surrender their intelligence and dignity to them and don’t see them for what they are use the rest of us for grist.
No thank you. And go Chris!
I think it was Einstein that said “The thinking that got us into this mess won’t be the thinking that will get us out of it.”
Praising those of ‘purpose’ within the business community that aren’t actively working every day to stop global warming, over population, the rape of the natural world, the spread of AIDS, etc., and doing it *outside* of their marketing budgets simply throws more fuel on the wildfire that’s consuming us all. The road to hell is paved with their good intentions.
Purposefully,
Kevin@ES2Forum.net
February 5th, 2007 at 7:20 am
The Oprahization of the web continues.
Higher Purpose (means someone has a lower one). Purpose-Driven Life (means someone’s ain’t). Cue Hugh.
Collin, read a book.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:40 am
LOL. RageBoy, you iconoclast!
February 5th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Tara and Chris, I love you both. But I do think Chris’ point is relevant to Tara’s post.
Chris’ comment supports two conclusions: 1. Higher purpose by itself isn’t good and can be bad. (On the “can be bad” point, check fp’s comment below.) #2. The book promoting the HP idea is shallow to the point of irresponsibility, and may indicate a totalitarian subtext to the HP idea.
Now, #2 is ad hominem, but any book that points to Henry Ford and Nietzsche as guiding lights is suspect. Not wrong, but suspect.
So, is HP wrong? Personally, I do find something troubling about it. (I don’t know if Chris is troubled by the same thing.)
Drop the HP from Tara’s explanation of what she finds appealing about HP and she’s talking about admirable things like the importance of ethics, generosity, and community. Go, Tara! But then stir in the HP rhetoric and suddenly something complex, loose-edged, situational, difficult, and human becomes the sort of thing that might get decided in a boardroom, the way tag lines and mission statements are; that’s why Tara warns us against it. But that (to me) means that identifying and having a HP makes life too simple, too clear, too principle- and purpose-driven. Reducing our purposes to a Higher Purpose feels like a diminishment. At least to me. I know it feels different to Tara, and she appreciates complexity and nuance, so I am probably off base with this.
In any case, I’m not worried about Tara becoming a Nazi. Hah! The HP she discusses only emphasizes her other-focused, community-driven values. But the notion (built into the concept of HP) that we all need a HP, much less that the world falls into the classes of those who have an HP and those who are just wandering around, I think is less than helpful. For example, I feel smaller in Tara’s eyes because I only have a ragbag of purposes, some of which are slightly elevated, but most of which involve eating on time and getting my brother to clean our gutters for us.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:51 am
I don’t think Locke is completely off the topic, but his point is made in such an emotioanlly charged way… semantics.
Anyway – I don’t for a second want to second-guess the power of purpose. If you want more reading on the subject, look into Viktor Frankl, particularly Man’s Search for Meaning.
Quite frankly, I’m pleased to hear of anyone embracing the idea of looking for purpose outside oneself. There’s been far too much of the insane babblings to our children about “believing in yourself.” We’re dooming an entire generation to the insane asylum, as Chesterton noted.
However, the point I think Locke is making is that there is a terrific danger by calling all efforts made in the name of “pupose” as “good.”
All great influential charachters in history were motivated by some pupose beyond themselves. But that does mean all – Ghandi to Napoleon, Mother Teresa to Hitler.
Asimov indirectly addressed this in the final short story of “I, Robot” – despite the three laws, the world-governing AI brain caused famines, war, and human suffering – just to ensure that it could continue to do what was best for humanity. Purpose, definitely. But did the end justify the means?
We can no more say “pupose is innately good” any more than we can say “the splitting of the atom is innately good” – for you shall reap both Kyoto-treaty safe energy and Hiroshima.
We need more emphasis on purpose, particulaly for individuals. For companies though… I just imagine all the Dilbert-style “Pointy Haired Bosses” that could turn this into a new fad, then very ugly thing as all types of behavior is justified for “higher purpose” or “the greater good.”
As for marketing… purpose does not necessarily need to come into play at the conception. That’s what spin is for.
Final note, regarding purpose and marketing: Whose purpose-driven agenda do you believe is more sincere?- Ubuntu or Microsoft?
February 5th, 2007 at 9:17 am
“1. Higher purpose by itself isn’t good and can be bad.”
Exactly…which also means that I couldn’t judge anyone else’s HP.
I don’t mean to reduce it, though…I stay awake at night thinking of it. It makes me incredibly passionate about stuff. It gives me a reason to get up in the morning. Etc.
I don’t want to sound like Oprah or any of these really slimy things the ‘guffaw brigade’ is indicating below (they remind me of the mean kids in high school who used to draw pictures of me with zits all over and laugh at my expense). I guess I want us to get real and human. Perhaps HP is the opposite for some.
Not for me. This is a personal journey.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I actually think of purpose of changing, shifting and growing with me and what I learn.
Where did Napoleon come into this? I’m confused.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:24 am
No you don’t. Not always. You just. But you don’t.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:27 am
I’m afraid you don’t know me very well. I rarely, if ever, talk about these things from the perspective of business.
Oh and:
“Markets are brainless, mindless things that do just one thing well – grind towards efficiency. And those who surrender their intelligence and dignity to them and don’t see them for what they are use the rest of us for grist.”
Most of them, yes. The corner store. The artisan. People that actually take pride in their little businesses…no.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I totally agree on the Dilbert comment. I don’t want to see that at all.
Great comment in general. As for your final question, I am biased and see Ubuntu as the most sincere…but that’s totally my bias.
The media tells me Bill Gates has a purpose, but I’ve seen him take out the kneecaps of too many small software companies over the years and treat customers like idiots to believe it too much.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Message to all. I’m going to be a dictatorial ass here and say:
1. If you are part of the swarm of mean kids that come around to just be disruptive without making a point, you will be deleted. Say what you came to say…you aren’t clever. You are mean.
2. I’m pretty sure some other comments were whipped up by the former sentiments. Be constructive. Don’t jump all over people. Let’s talk like we would face to face, not feel as though we can be harsher because this is an online thing.
That’s it. I don’t have an official comment policy, but I will delete comments as I see fit.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:03 am
“Exactly…which also means that I couldn’t judge anyone else’s HP.”
Ah .. but we _must_ be judges of the HPs of:
- the people we work for
- the political causes and/or ideologies we advance
- the organizations we use as ‘good’ examples
- who we offer up to our children as role models
Otherwise whatever HP we have is subsumed by those to which we give our allegiance.
We _must_ judge these HPs … they are the frameworks on which we create the future.
This ultimately comes down to how we invest ourselves in creating a future for which we want to be remembered.
Ethics. I wish I could be creative here, but since human psychology hasn’t changed since the Greeks invented philosophy, I commend those sources to the readers of this thread. Study of those sources will reveal nothing written by Nikos Mourkogiannis, or the other authors cited in these postings, is new.
William
February 5th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Please don’t confuse “higher purpose” with a sense of “connectedness” or “needing meaning”. The connectedness you are describing does not need nor require an ideology or definable activity to create a euphoric sense of meaningfulness and in fact, doing so creates only a “limited purpose” for the goals of the group from which you are seeking the power which supplies additional good feelings of “purpose”.
There is no way to “embrace the chaos” simply because the chaos is totally beyond your ability to grasp it and, in fact, you too are inside the test tube. There is no larger perspective you will ever be able to comprehend because your (our) brain isn’t structure to deal with the complexity which is required to perform such a magical feat of comprehension. Realize that, and you (we) may be on the way to not needing to find words to justify why feeling connected is natural and a very function of social existence.
Life to enjoy and appreciate yourself and others and the benefits of connectedness make themselves apparent and, in time, create their own purpose; even without the need to articulate why it is so. We didn’t need any concept of a “higher purpose” 100,000 years ago; yet, here we are.
Joey
February 5th, 2007 at 10:12 am
On the contrary. As far back as is recorded, people have asked the question of Purpose. The Greek philosophers were obsessed with it. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave actually started my thinking about this in my own life years ago.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:15 am
It’s a very difficult thing to be a judge of. We are all terribly biased.
A Christian’s HP is very different from a Buddhist’s HP for instance.
We can definitely ‘vote’ with our attention, dollars, who we tell our children we uphold, etc., but realize your next door neighbour has the freedom to do the same thing and he/she may not agree with your frame of ethics.
Yes. The Greeks said it all (we like to rehash things over and over…lol). Actually Plato’s Allegory of the Cave was my inspiration that started me thinking about my own purpose back in university.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Christian vs Buddhist vs Muslim HP … hmmmmm that would be an interesting comparison table …
And then there is the theory vs the implementations, no?
I think that is why so many people have and are being killed in the name of religion, and why our conflict with the Muslim world transcends oil and Israel.
If you want to see how international capitalism has polished up its own HP, read “The Pentagon’s New Map” and “The World is Flat”. Taken together, truly depressing …
William
February 5th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Would that the people running the corners stores ran the world…
I grew up in a ‘corner store’ @ 100 N. Main St. in Janesville, MN, Pop. 2,000. ‘Purpose’ for us was simply providing value for the money we were paid, taking care of those folks that needed taking care of and taking care of those folks that took care of us.
It was only much later in life that I learned to see people as consumers and not friends, as numbers on a spreadsheet and not as human beings. I didn’t like it, so I gave it up. And this is not to say that I wasn’t good at it.
However, I’m buffetted daily by those that didn’t, and particularly by those that see their ‘purpose’ as including ‘may the devil take the hindmost’ tactics and by those myopic free market evangelists that are so blind they see only one bottom line.
So when someone says they have a ‘purpose’ in a business context, it sets my defenses. From there I print off a couple of hundred copies of Maslow’s heirarchy of needs, wad them up and throw them at them until they ‘fess up and tell me that what they really want to do is get people to lower their guards so that they can make money off of them easier.
And you’re right. I don’t know you very well. If you’re in favor of artisans and corner stores, great! That makes it unanimous. Report something on them and I’ll find this conversation more worthwhile. But reporting on the higher ‘purpose’ of the corporatists du jour won’t get you on my Christmas card list. It’s simply not interesting to me unless it’s reported as penance.
And then I want to see the footnotes and verification.
Best,
Kevin
February 5th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Time goes by and now I’m confused. Struggling with my confusion I turn to my friendly Firefox “Find in this page” feature. I key in “nap” (not a bad idea I think, a nap…) and there revealed are all the references to Napoleon. It helps to use the tools. You can use them too!
Regarding purpose “changing, shifting, and growing…” — I’m surprised. The Higher Purpose you describe in the post seems monolithic. Oh well. I imagine it all comes down to the Emersonian foolish consistency/hobgoblin thingy.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:04 am
You deleted a comment or two by me? Why? I am not “mean”, I am simply debating an issue. This is a healthy vigorous debate. It is what blogs are all about.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Hey all,
Surfed over from Chris’ e-mail… look, I think judging other HP’s is critical to living an enlightened life. Stated HP’s such as “bringing freedom and democracy to the world” are pretty f*ckin’ dangerous, and at the end of the day, plain and simply wrong.
I don’t claim to have a well-defined HP myself, a lot of the time feeling like David has aptly described – and I’m not convinced that is a bad thing. As demonstrated herein, it can be blinding, especially when it’s a load of politico-religious hogwash. But when you’re in a position of leadership (political, executive, or spiritual), and you’re blinding followers with your HP laser set to “stun”, causing them misery, death, suffering, repression, stupidity, cancer, consumerism and ankle warts – I think people need to step up and call BS.
So, within that framework, I’m all for judging.
Tara, I know what you meant – and I’m commenting more on the comments than the substance of your piece – there does need to be a shared perception of overlapping needs/purpose for collaborative success in almost any organized pursuit.
/aac
February 5th, 2007 at 11:33 am
And what about before recorded history?
Though, you are right above the Cave. It is great to advance your understandings and to learn more. I think the confusion comes from trying to delineate between the objective and subjective and the knowable and unknowable while improperly assuming that we are actually capable of doing either, objectively, with very limited languages and a very limited brain. I don’t mean to insult our abilities as such; I simply realize that we can’t visualize the 11th dimension without knowing everything about the first 10 nor can we float complex ideas containing more than some arbitrary number of interconnected relationships. We aren’t good understanding complexity and few of us are willing to spend 20 years contemplating the structure of the universe [insert Einstein.jpg here].
There is nothing wrong with asking about purpose except, perhaps, to continue to ask about purpose after you realize that questions about purpose are the wrong questions to ask
We tend to ask “what is the purpose of the universe” when we know (or can reasonably surmise due to lack of evidence) the universe has no intention. It serves little purpose asking questions about the purpose of the universe or life.
A far more useful question is “what is my purpose [in life]?” or other related questions about the intention of observable objects.
But to answer questions about universal purpose assumes you are capable of knowing just as much as the universe would need to know if it itself had intention and purpose. Surely you can never hope to expect that of yourself nor can you expect that any answer you come up with will be universally adequate.
What you (we) are dealing with is the human need to have an explanation for all unresolved things (possibly to avoid the anxiety that unresolved questions create; see Shermer).
If we (or anyone) has a purpose, it might be simply to exist in a continuum of connectedness to provide the support to maintain the continuum of connectedness. You learn so that others, generations down the road, might know more; but you yourself will never have all the answers.
I know, recursive double talk; allow me to attempt to explain it as a religious belief:
Suppose there is a God which created the Universe which produced Humans which are capable of Thought. It then follows that Thought is somehow an important point of the system’s evolution (we don’t know what comes after Thought, yet). What would God need our Thought for? And why create a Universe which produced Humans as Thinkers? Might one surmise that God wants us to think about something? What? Some question(s) even God itself can’t answer for which God created the entire Universe to aid in answering?
Now picture, if you will, that all of your books say that God created the Universe because God had an Unanswered Question for which Human Thought was required to Resolve. (Caps Intentional). When each Human Thinker dies, God’s almighty finger digs deep info the virtual skull of the floating soul and probes around. “Hmmm, another person who watched ‘Friends’, nothing to learn here. Next! … Hmmm, someone who was abused by a priest, married their sister, read tons of books, and farmed. Wow. Deeper. Deeper. I see. The Farmer’s right! That’s it! That’s the answer to the Universe! THE PURPOSE OF MY UNIVERSE IS TO CREATE FERTILIZER SO THAT LIFE CAN CREATE MORE FERTILIZER WHICH FEEDS MORE LIFE AND THUS CREATES FERTILIZER!”
Now even God would be shocked by this circular revelation on a number of grounds, which you can easily surmise; but the most important one would be “what next?” The Unanswered Question has been answered. What next? In other words: circular double talk or not: what purpose then does knowing the purpose produce?
Purpose implies intention. Who is The Intender? Why is their intention better than others’ Intentions?
Whatever your “higher purpose” is; you can never articulate it beyond something that becomes a “limited purpose” and is useless beyond the point (mood, emotion, situation) which needed to created it. Much in life and society is also circular, constantly seeking balance to maintain its stasis; the ‘purpose’ of which is simply to maintain itself.
You nor I are smart enough to comprehend things beyond our inability to deal with true complexity. There is nothing wrong with trying — all objective reality and progress requires us to think; but creating a group stuck on an ideology always leads to problems — this is an unavoidable fact about human societies — and nearly always results in someone proclaiming “higher purpose” as the ultimate answer; for which non-believers tend to die.
Thus, it is far better to appreciate all things and appreciate that some things simply can’t be explained using inadequate human languages produced by a brain which wants to avoid complexity.
We should endeavor to learn to deal with the anxiety of “not knowing” or being able to say, “I don’t know” and accept that “we never can know”. That doesn’t mean we can’t continue to learn: it simply means we need to learn to ask more useful questions, learn to understand complexity [thus avoid simple reductionism] and understand that all of our emotions don’t have a spiritual meaning. [And 10,000 other things ;]
Best & respectfully,
Joey
February 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I left the comments that were part of the healthy, vigorous debate. Blogs, to me too, are about discussion. I just found the other comments to be mean-spirited and posturing rather than additions to the discussion/debate. Feel free to re-post what you are trying to say.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I am quite astonished that you would filter out comments based on “mean-spirited” and “posturing”. Not criteria that I would use ever, but it’s your blog and you can do whatever you want.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Since Chris Locke’s essay mentions Kierkegaard….”The task is not to find the lovable object, but to find the object before you lovable.” – Soren Kierkegaard, from “Works of Love.”
Often we discount what we are working this very minute too easily in the search for something that is higher, better, loftier. Later. Bring your best to every task every minute.
I just wrote about Higher Purpose spinning off from this post today. I got challenged on it by a friend that knows me and how purpose shows up through me in the world.
I think HP can be compromised by getting too worked up around having one by our own willfulness, selfishness, and hidden desires for world domination (serious!). That’s why I purposefully used Buckminster Fuller as my role model/hero since on the throes of throwing himself into Lake Michigan, “it suddenly struck him that his life belonged, not to himself, but to the universe.” Here was my response back to my friend:
I totally with you that we are going to do what we do, yes. I don’t advocate stressing about not knowing if you have a higher purpose or not. Or worrying if you are doing ‘it’ right or not.
I have spent too much time in past fretting whether I was living my purpose and since I wasn’t quite sure what my purpose was that gave me a lot to stress about – rather than just living that minute, and the next minute, and the next. (It’s not really YOUR higher purpose anyhow.)
In the living of it, the purpose unfolds.
I really am growing fond of the surfing metaphor more and more: Ride the wave.
I just end up doing the next most obvious thing, and then the next. However, I did feel at times as if something wanted to birth through me, and I resisted and resisted and resisted because in the eyes of society it would seem too impractical and imprudent. So that’s what I want to challenge in myself. Am I really cooperating with the inevitable, or I being willful and refusing to participate in Life because _____.
In the end, C.’s refrigerator magnet says it all: “Ask your heart what’s right, and follow it.” Although that’s the training wheels version to get practice. It becames our nature, not our second nature, to just follow our heart without asking and without reservations. And so without even being aware of any higher purpose or striving towards higher purpose we end up on purpose totally spontaneously.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Wow, Joey, lovely. I also concur with both you & Tara on Plato’s Cave allegory as being something quite profound. A turning point if one contemplates it in an open-ended manner. Although I never found it to be about purpose specifically as much as what is nature of the universe and reality…and would I want to really know?
I understand where Joey is coming from, but I’m not certain that Tara is suggesting that we can or even need to know the higher purpose from any cosmic level to proceed. We don’t need to know, and that’s okay. I think as I suggested in earlier comment we might allow ourselves as individuals to be ameniable to living out any inspired vision that is already making its way into heart.
I was just reading about the the painter, writer and social visionary . He was a close friend of Yeats and he was behind the Celtic Revival, an Irish cultural and spiritual movement that lasted from 1885 to 1915. He acted from what he deemed higher purpose, but he also was quite aware that he was an agent, and not so much operating from his own agency. He was an advocate of imagination and said “the immortal in us has memory of all its wisdom…” and “…when it speaks to us we feel truly inspired and a mightier creature than ourselves speaks THROUGH us.”
When I’m stumped about higher purpose showing up, I’ve found a little time each day in quiet helps set the tone for the rest of the day:
“The self-conscious mind cannot reach silent knowing, but silent knowing can reach into it at rare moments when the internal talk ceases, allowing other things to be heard. Everyone has these moments, when the world turns quiet and an indefinable calm washes over us.” – Not in His Image, by John Lamb Lash
It is at these times that the clarity makes the next step more obvious, especially since HP can seem so hugely overwhelming – where would you begin?
February 5th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Oops, somehow my comment left out George William Russell’s name identifying him as the painter, writer and social visionary. (more via wikipedia)
February 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Personally, the idea that markets are brainless, mindless things I find repulsive. For the simple reason that all markets consist of people, doing what needs to be done to further their own, private, purposes.
(Note the plural: purposes.)
You may think you know best how markets *should* be, and how people engaged in them *should* operate: good for you.
Now convince more people that your ideas have merit, by showing them how your way will advance their myriad purposes more effectively, and people will follow.
Just want to bitch and call them names because you haven’t or can’t do this? Well, that gets no respect from me.
And Miss Rogue, how come THAT comment didn’t even hit your “mean guys” radar?
Please don’t tell me it’s because you agree with it? That you think it’s ok to diss the people you disagree with, while holding high moral standards about people dissing what you agree with?
In my country, the Maori have a saying: What is the greatest treasure? It is people, it is people, it is people.
Without markets, and the right to engage them on their own terms, the people suffer under the purposes of their rulers.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
The sad thing in this whole conversation is that many people, including myself and I think I can say C. Locke, have been burned by Higher Purposers.
Rogues and con men hide under this mantle of “Hey, I got a Higher Purpose”, a cloak that the”mean kids” of blogocombat were clobbering and dismantling with gleeful zeal.
Someone claims to “have a ministry”, “lead a congregation”, “run an insight seminar”, “write human-empowerment mytho-poetic auto-suggestology manuals”, or “teach harmony drills”, and the wounded ones flee with cackling and snide asides.
A good Higher Purpose might be to destroy the klesas, envy, strife, greed, materialism within us, scorch the seeds.
Or, as Patanjali might say:
1. Now then Yoga is being explained.
2. Yoga is the suppression of the modifications of the mind.
3. Then the Seer abides in Itself.
4. At other times the Seer appears to assume the form of the modification of the mind.
5. They (modifications) fall into five varieties, of which some are ‘Klista’ and the rest ‘Aklista’.
6. (They are) Pramana, Viparyaya, Vikalpa, (dreamless) sleep and recollection.
7. (Of these) Perception, inference and testimony (verbal communication) constitutethe Pramanas.
8. Viparyaya or illusion is false knowledge formed of a thing as other than what it is.
9. The modification called ‘Vikalpa’ is based on verbal cognition in regard to a thingwhich does not exist. (It is a kind of useful knowledge arising out of the meaning of a word but having no corresponding reality. ).
10. Dreamless sleep is the mental modification produced by the condition of inertia as the state of vacuity or negation (of waking and dreaming).
11. Recollection is mental modification caused by reproduction of the previous impression of an object without adding anything from other sources.
12. By practice and detachment these can be stopped.
13. Exertion to acquire Sthiti or a tranquil state of mind devoid of fluctuations is called practice.
14. That practice when continued for a long time without break and with devotion becomes firm in foundation.
15. When the mind loses all desire for objects seen or described in the scriptures it acquires a state of utter desirelessness which is called detachment.
16. Indifference to the Gunas or the constituent principles, achieved through a knowledge of the nature of Purusha, is called Paravairagya (supreme detachment).
;^)
Sorry about the long quote, but seems appropo.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Go Joey!
The purpose of DNA is to make more DNA…
Cheers,
Kevin
February 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Hmmm, Vaspers, isn’t it possible that those folks weren’t acting from any higher purpose, simply higher ego? Ego has a clever way of usurping language, including the language of purpose for its purpose. I agree there may be no higher purpose than to know Thyself:
“When the mind loses all desire for objects seen or described in the scriptures it acquires a state of utter desirelessness which is called detachment.”
Detachment doesn’t mean nothing ever happens. What shifts is it happens THROUGH us, rather than BY us.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
The tone of advocacy in your post would seem to suggest this is an important matter to you. You cite an arresting anecdote that suggests higher purpose can originate in a crucible of violence. We do not know what the higher purpose of the people gunning the women down might have been, but it’s certainly possible they had one. Purposiveness and violence are linked from the beginning of your discussion.
And yet, you add, in the thread, “I couldn’t judge anyone else’s HP.”
Advocacy of a mode of power that absolves itself from judgments regarding the source, mode, use, effects and justification of that power is a peculiar form of advocacy.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Man, I rarely bother to leave comments either, and mine got deleted as well! Despite, I hasten to add, the fact that it was lucid and on-point, if not entirely free of funnin’. But then, when has the wonderchicken been entirely free of funnin’, I ask you.
Ah well, here’s to Marketsations, or Convershillificatin’, or whatever the hell the koolaid de jour is these days.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I’m disappointed. I read all the way through this thread, thinking shurely shomeone’s going to quote the great Navin R. Johnson…
OK, this may not be the most insightful addition to the conversation, but (to channel Jerry Garcia for a moment) somebody has to do something and it’s just incredibly pathetic that it has to be me.
Everything I need to know about purpose, I learned from Navin.
And, no, I am emphatically not casting nasturtiums here. Not suggesting for a moment that anyone’s a jerk. Merely adding a sprinkle of twinkly frosting to the over-baked cake. YMMV, usual disclaimers apply, always read the warning label, light blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance…
February 5th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
We need a Higher Purpose. We just need to be very wary of Higher Purposers who use Higher Purpose posings to conceal Lower Purposes.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Head in heaven, heart in hellers.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:24 am
A purpose needs to accurately reflect reality or it’s destructive. Eugenics and racism is a false representation of human qualities. Any purpose, however idealistic and to the “benefit of man”, that’s premised on a false reality will be destructive in it’s implementation.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Tara, the thing that got the ball rolling here was how you responded to the very first comment on this post, your casual dismissal of just some guy’s assertion that family and relationships might matter more than ‘Higher Purpose,’ that some people just make software and call it a day.
Your reply “That’s sad for you. Sorry to hear this. Good luck!” is the perfect depiction of what Higher Purpose is really about.
You invoke ‘mean kids’ throughout your comment complaints, never once recignizing that shame dumping and shutting down conversation with casual sweeps of a hand is MEAN and maddening.
Maybe you were reading this whole discussion on a mobile device. How did you read the substance of this thread and get to where you got to? Here, you have poured a gazillion paragraphs of assertions on hot embers of topics like purpose and privilege, and then quip back when someone says, excuse me but have you thought of x, y, or Z?
In this discussion, you are accusing others of acts of bullying without recognizing the bully in yourself. I take shame dumping lightly.
I leave you with this:
How can you say Hitler had a Higher Purpose, and in the same breath say that you can’t judge someone else’s Higher Purpose?
Forget ‘purpose,’ what does “Higher” mean to you?
okay, i have to go do lower purpose activies now, like get my kid to school.
February 6th, 2007 at 5:13 am
…I “Don’t” take shame dumping lightly. (and my coffee is still brewing.)
February 6th, 2007 at 7:21 am
A disillusioned shark, grown weary of the repetitive cycles of his predatory existence, undertook a pilgrimage to find that Great Seer of the Seven Seas – the wise and ancient Giant Squid.
Many months he travelled the oceans, pausing in his relentless search only briefly to hunt the halibut necessary for him to survive. As he moved ever further into international waters, far from his home, the halibut that were the mainstay of his diet grew scarcer and harder to find. Undaunted, he continued in his quest for the Great Seer.
Eventually, after almost a year, half-starved from lack of halibut and exhausted from his journey, he found the fabled home of the Giant Squid, deep in an ocean trench.
“Teach me, oh guru!” he petitioned, collapsing in front of the Seer. “My life lacks all meaning. Lead me to truth.”
Shifting its mighty tentacles, and fixing the shark with one giant, baleful eye, the colossal squid pondered this scrawny young would-be acolyte.
“Truth will you find,” sayeth the Squid. “But first must you eat. Strong must he be, who seeks the One Way.”
“But what am I to eat, oh Wisest One?” asked the shark. “Our seas are depleted; the halibut are all but gone from the great ocean.”
“Halibut? Pshaw!” spat the Seer. “Cast your gaze to the surface, youngling – answers there will you find.”
Almost too weary to speak, the obedient shark looked up towards the distant surface of the sea.
A strange, mystical light reached him from far above, and a joyous sound as of newborn shark pups frolicking in the morning of their brood home.
Drawn upwards, the shark, faint from exhaustion and hunger, followed the light and the magical sound to the surface, where he beheld the most curious creatures he had ever seen.
Smaller than his fellow sharks, but very like them in shape – these happy, gill-less creatures leapt and splashed through the waves overhead, giggling and clicking with glee.
Entranced by their cetacean beauty, but half-mad with hunger, the shark was suddenly overcome by predatory lust. Summoning his last reserves of strength, he lunged far out of the water, emerging beneath one of the dolphin-like creatures as it leapt through the air; his jaws snapping shut around its slippery body, razor-sharp teeth penetrating slick grey flesh.
As the creature’s hot blood flowed down his gullet, and he ripped a first wet chunk of flesh from its side, he felt an extraordinary, euphoric wave sweep through his entire being. In a bloody haze, he devoured the entire animal, transcendently high on the rich, aromatic sweetness of its exotic meat.
Finally, blissfully dazed and sated, the shark lay back and sank, slowly, to the ocean’s floor; humming softly to himself as he descended to the lair of the Great Seer once more.
“Oh… maaaan!” cooed the shark. “Faaaar out, baby – that was, like, intense. Wow! What ever was that thing? Man, it was delicious! I’m never touching halibut again.”
“You see, young neophyte,” replied the mighty Squid. “If enlightenment you seek, do nothing just for the halibut – always must you strive for the higher porpoise.”
(I’m really sorry. It just came to me on the subway ride this morning, and I had to get it out of my head.)
February 6th, 2007 at 10:38 am
@Tom – well, violence is sometimes the impetus for wake up, unfortunately. It wasn’t mine, but it was the author’s. I don’t advocate violence, but I also do not deny that it exists and that it is the reality of many.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Very well said. I totally agree. 100%. I may not come across here, in this post as thinking this out fully, but I really do live my life in fear that everything that is important will eventually be commercialized.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Your quote from the Maori is amazing. I love it.
RE: “Just want to bitch and call them names because you haven’t or can’t do this? Well, that gets no respect from me.
And Miss Rogue, how come THAT comment didn’t even hit your “mean guys” radar?”
I’m confused…which comment is that?
I only deleted 3 comments and that was because they were slightly childish, quite taunting and one even attacked another commenter for, a, perhaps, naive statement, but it was uncalled for.
I never delete comments because I disagree with them.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:45 am
I agree…I just think that would be absolutely impossible, seeing that there are so many viewpoints in the world.
Personally, when I think of HP, I think of small problems I can solve…
February 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I didn’t mean to dismiss ‘just some guy’ here. Without realizing how my comment would sound to readers, I was saying, “Sounds like you actually have a very strong HP, you are just denying it. Stop denying it!” But it did come across wrong now that I go back and read it…I responded to ‘just some guy’ after I read Chris L.’s comment, which totally threw me off. I totally didn’t mean to invoke anti-semitism. Not in a million years. After I read that, I raced through my comment on ‘just some guy’s entry so that I could respond to Chris. My bad.
I certainly didn’t mean to shame dump. I totally agree with you. I hate that, too. I also hate ‘you are shallow’ dumping, which, I think, is another manifestation of shame dumping, which is what the ‘mean comments’ were saying, but not in a “This sounds shallow” way. I don’t think I’m shallow. I live my life in agony over how I can please everyone else. It hurt me to have these guys, who I’ve seen attack others elsewhere, come around without knowing who I am and leave not so nice comments. If that makes me weak, then I am weak.
What does “Higher” mean to me? It means beyond survival. Beyond the day to day grind of life. Beyond my own little world. Beyond making a buck. “Higher” means things that positively affect those around me. Someone’s HP could definitely be their family and their kids…making a better life for them. But when making a better life for their children means that it hurts someone else and their children, that is not a Higher Purpose, that is self-promotion.
That’s where people like Hitler, the Communist dictators and other evil, but charismatic leaders twisted Higher Purpose to only benefit a small group of people like them. Unfortunately, they were able to lead people with that HP far enough to do alot of damage. There is a dark side to it. I have to figure out how to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ without being narrow. You see, there are good Christians and good Buddhists and good Islams who have HP, but wouldn’t necessarily agree with one another on what that means.
Anyway. Yes. I agree with you. I sounded dismissive and I’m sorry to “just some guy” (I think I actually clarified it in my second response to him and we ended up having a decent exchange).
And, I didn’t say I have the answers. I’m figuring this stuff out, mostly for myself…outloud here.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Thanks for your amazing insight into this, Ev.
“In the living of it, the purpose unfolds.”
This totally nails it…
February 6th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Hey Enric,
You are totally right. I’ve been thinking about how we can make the distinction between “Higher Purpose” and “Hurtful Purpose”.
I guess what I’m being sensitive to is that, in the case of GWB, there are alot of good people who believe(d) that his actions in Iraq were some divine message and, truly, the protection of America’s freedom. Myself, I think that is insane, but it gave 51% of the American voters something to believe in and get behind. Of course, now that people are realizing it wasn’t a HP at all, that it was the drive of a crazy man and it’s hurt alot of people (and totally destroyed an entire country), where are we?
I also think about the different religions and how they see HP. This faith is important to the followers of these religions and, in itself, doesn’t hurt others. The wars that follow. The persecution that follows in the name of HP, that hurts.
I need to think this through. Maybe the people in this forum, who seem to feel passionate about this subject can start to discuss this with me?
February 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
“I totally didn’t mean to invoke anti-semitism.”
Tara: nor did I think, even for a second, that you were doing that. I think you missed my point here from the very start. Let’s recap. You wrote about a book, Purpose, by Nikos Mourkogiannis, in which the author uses Henry Ford as an example — even going so far as to include a chapter titled “The Heroic Purpose of Henry Ford.” Now it seems this book has been widely praised in the business community (I supplied a link to the publisher’s page so everyone could read the glowing kudos). However, Henry Ford was not a hero, but rather a despicable racist coward who supported Hitler and supplied him with a rationale for what later became the Holocaust. I think these are salient facts that bear deeper scrutiny than this book has yet received. And they are especially relevant in light of the high-toned discussion of ethics, morality and capital-P Purpose — all of which your author goes into in some detail.
However, I was told several times that what I was saying had no relevance to this post. If you were unable to connect those dots, then I think you might be out of your depth broaching such complex issues. If you feel insulted by that comment, I can assure you it’s no less than I felt on being told to “take it elsewhere” and being compared to some dolt in a Monty Python skit. If people have seemed “mean” to you here, you might ask yourself where that started.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
“Since Chris Locke’s essay mentions Kierkegaard…”
Excuse me, but Chris Locke said nothing whatsoever about Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was, however, mentioned by Nikos Mourkogiannis — the author of the book under discussion here — in the link I supplied above:
http://www.purposethebook.com/aboutthebook/excerpt
If I haven’t already made it clear enough, I don’t *like* that author much, so would appreciate not having his words attributed to me. Attention to detail does help keep things a bit straighter in such exchanges.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“Where did Napoleon come into this? I’m confused.”
You surely are, Tara. He was mentioned in that quote I left here by the author of Purpose — the book you initially posted about, remember? That was the comment to which you replied:
“Ack. Got it. Your point is loud and clear, Chris.
Not anything to do with this conversation, but loud and clear.”
Your confusion about Napoleon proves that you had in fact not read what I wrote.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Sigh. Chris. I may be out of my element because these are the things I’m trying to juggle right now:
1. Being a business owner…swamped with client work
2. Being the mother of a very troubled teen
3. Having a gabillion conferences coming up and loads of research to complete
I didn’t misinterpret that you said I was anti-semitic. I understand that you found the author and the book I referred to as shallow and his references poor (and anti-semitic). I was over my head on that one because I: a. don’t know the history of Ford and b. I haven’t formed an opinion on the book. I actually said in my post that I haven’t finished reading it and I didn’t think it was a sufficient writing of what I was talking about.
The reason I agreed that you were off-topic is because my post wasn’t intended to be a review nor an endorsement of the book or his examples. I should definitely write another post or amend this one to reflect that if you think it was. Usually, I’m pretty clear in my endorsements.
As David W. pointed out, I was wrong in that assessment because, even though your points aren’t DIRECTLY on-topic with what my thesis is – Higher Purpose is important – my examples to support that thesis were questionnable, which are what you were pointing out…
Do I have it right?
February 6th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Sorry I missed that his reference to Napoleon was a reference to yours…this thread has gone all over the place. (something like 76+ comments)
I’m afraid I’m not keeping up. Life is crazy for me this week. I read what you wrote…my inability to keep information straight between commenters is my shortcoming.
February 6th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Like Higher Purposes, for example.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Exactly.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
You think Hitler needed Ford? A citation would be helpful …
February 6th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Web 2.0’s democratisation of media produces a wealth of new perspectives. Some of those formerly excluded from the public sphere have the chance to make their voices heard. But this wave of participation is as important for business as it is for the newly included. Mute’s Web 2.0 special uncovers the work in social networking and, behind the ‘dotcommunist’ spin, a centralisation of the means of sharing. Texts by Giorgio Agostoni, Olga Goriunova, Dmytri Kleiner & Brian Wyrick and Angela Mitropoulos. Additional articles by Brian Ashton, John Barker, Paul Helliwell and Merijn Oudenampsen
And here is the intro for the InfoEnclosure 2.0 article:
The hype surrounding Web 2.0’s ability to democratise content production obscures its centralisation of ownership and the means of sharing. Dmytri Kleiner & Brian Wyrick expose Web 2.0 as a venture capitalist’s paradise where investors pocket the value produced by unpaid users, ride on the technical innovations of the free software movement and kill off the decentralising potential of peer-to-peer production
http://www.metamute.org/en/InfoEnclosure-2.0
*
Society of Ontario Freethinkers*
The God Who Wasn’t There*
Bowling for Columbine did it to the gun culture.
Super Size Me did it to fast food.
Now The God Who Wasn’t There does it to religion.
Holding modern Christianity up to a bright spotlight, this bold and often hilarious new film asks the questions few dare to ask.
Your guide through the world of Christendom is former fundamentalist Brian Flemming, joined by such luminaries as Jesus Seminar fellow Robert M. Price, professor Richard Dawkins, author Sam Harris and historian Richard Carrier.
See the movie the Los Angeles Times calls “provocative – to put it mildly.”
Hold on to your faith. It’s in for a bumpy ride.
February 6th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Yes, there’s so much to say. Text is a double edged sword. It can thoughtfully express ideas that remains to many. On the other hand, text alone drops the dimensionality of presence, behavior, context of the person expressing. It’s interesting that we’ll probably not have such conversations in person. And in person we’ll now so much more about what someone else means.
February 7th, 2007 at 4:44 am
Hi Evelyn,
Yes, you are right and correct to point out that I took the discussion of “higher purpose” slightly out of context to Tara’s original intentions. Surely she didn’t mean cosmic purpose; however, the cover image (ray of light enlightens lost lumberjack [note the cut tree branch]) help set the framing towards a spiritual interpretation of her prose. Reading between the lines, Tara appears to be saying she wants a better world and thinks making a business with that goal is one way of doing so. Certainly a lovely and worthy goal. But as euphoric as her epiphany might feel or sound, reality has a nasty way of actually being real and that quote about the road to hell comes to mind.
We’ve tried framing reality around religious dogma and spiritual metaphors for a long time now (perhaps 8,000 years); perhaps it is time to change?
Best,
Joey
February 7th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“In Africa, they say there are two hungers, the lesser hunger and the greater hunger. The lesser hunger is for the things that sustain life, the goods and services, and the money to pay for them, which we all need. The greater hunger is for an answer to the question “why?”, for some understanding of what that life is for.” – “Hungry Spirit, Beyond Capitalism: A Quest for Purpose in the Modern World” by Charles Handy
Interesting, this quote starts “in Africa…” I think people across the planet everywhere wonder from time to time why should I get up tomorrow morning? For those reading THIS blog (not speaking for economies of world or even USA), I think we really do have the luxury of asking these deeper questions.
For some their children are the driver and motivation for “why” as reenacted in the movie, “The Pursuit of Happyness”. And I must say for my own parents whom immigrated from Cuba that was their motivation too, some variation of: “a better life for their kids.” Even with mouths to feed, there certainly are situations even in the so-called 1st world of suicide among parents. The greater hunger lies unfulfilled for many, many people.
I think there is SOMETHING that motivates us to act and go on with life, whether we want to call it motivation, beliefs, values, purpose, inspiration, etc.
That WHY is an individual, personal question that takes integrity (playing off Joey’s use of honesty, really loved what he shared) to answer over and over for ourselves. I thought when I started my serious quest for “what is my purpose” after the dot-com bust closed the company and after my divorce that finding that one tidy packaged answer would provide the impetus for me to have the passion and will to go run with IT, whatever IT was.
I think maybe some people take offense at the term “higher purpose” because that has a way of easily becoming “Eureka, I have THE answer!!” AND I’m looking for converts!” (I believe the question is so personal, and you couldn’t possibly just hand it to others.) With HP, it’s too easy for our egos to get embroiled and aim for world salvation and somehow end up down the road to world domination.
That’s why I think integrity is important. Integrity with the question.
Carlos Castaneda urges, “Before you embark on any path ask the question: Does this path have a heart? If the answer is no, you will know it, and then you must choose another path. The trouble is nobody asks the question…”
After 5 years seriously turning over that question, What is MY purpose?, I have a general aim/direction and hypothesis. The question is an open-ended moment-by-moment exploration. I think maybe that’s why Gandhi called his life an experiment with truth.
So another point of contention that some maybe having is HP can also become fixed, fixated – in any answer, and that can be dangerous too. To leave it open-ended allows room for growth and being informed by life.
So maybe Higher Purpose isn’t quite the term to use. But I think Tara hit something genuine here. Really, so many of us reading here have so much to share. For me, and I think because I’ve met Tara, she may be saying the same thing, I think there are two kinds of people: those that act from shared interests, and those that will. It’s gotten really hard for me to be enthused to work with people, companies, institutions that are only about self-preservation. Well, more in ‘kindling’, and here’s some food for thought written by a friend of mine that takes philanthropists to Africa for their safari vacations plus adds in time for them to work hand-in-hand alongside communities and people on humanitarian projects (going beyond checkbook charity and making it about face time with the projects and people).
The Wisdom Of Sharing Stone Soup
There are many variations on the story of stone soup, but they all involve a traveler coming into a town. The inhabitants try to discourage the traveler from staying, fearing he wants them to give him food. They tell him in no uncertain terms that there’s no food anywhere to be found. The traveler explains that he doesn’t need any food and that, in fact, he was planning to make a soup to share with all of them. The villagers watch suspiciously as he builds a fire and fills a cauldron with water.
With great ceremony, he pulls a stone from a bag, dropping the stone into the pot of water. He sniffs the brew extravagantly and exclaims how delicious stone soup is. As the villagers begin to show interest, he mentions how good the soup would be with just a little cabbage in it. A villager brings out a cabbage to share. This episode repeats itself until the soup has cabbage, carrots, onions, and beets-indeed, a substantial soup that feeds everyone in the village.
This story addresses the human tendency to hoard in times of deprivation. When resources are scarce, we pull back and put all of our energy into self-preservation. We isolate ourselves and shut out others. As the story of stone soup reveals, in doing so, we often deprive ourselves and everyone else of a feast.
This metaphor plays out beyond the realm of food. We hoard ideas, love, and energy, thinking we will be richer if we keep to them to ourselves, when in truth we make the world, and ourselves, poorer whenever we greedily stockpile our reserves. The traveler was able to see that the villagers were holding back, and he had the genius to draw them out and inspire them to give, thus creating a spread that none of them could have created alone.
Are you like one of the villagers, holding back? If you come forward and share your gifts, you will inspire others to do the same. The reward is a banquet that can nourish many. – by David Chamberlain,
“The Wisdom Of Sharing Stone Soup”, Exquisite Safaris
February 7th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Oops, the URL for the “Kindling” post on shared interests was left out above.
February 9th, 2007 at 7:00 am
The mother of a troubled teen spending how many hours replying to messages on an internet forum?
Juggling clients, research and how many excuses?
Someone needs their priorities readjusted. I wouldn’t mind betting you spend less than one hour a week doing things with your teenager which they enjoy doing but many more hours fighting and arguing and wishing they’d sort themselves out so you could get back to those important things like clients, research(!) and internet forums.
Ever stop to ask what it’s all for?
February 9th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
The comment that markets are mindless things that grind us all up, as if making a living is some kind of karmic crime …
No people, no markets, so if markets are mindless then so too are people.
That’s what I call a mean comment.
Not only that, if enough people actually believe it, it has disastrous consequences, so it’s perniciously evil not only in intent but in its effects.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
And you asked if your butt was lookin big!
Personally, my answer was the closest to philosophy I’ve ever managed. I’m seriously bummed it’s been erased …
Perhaps it wasn’t “fit for purpose” …
February 9th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
The interesting thing is that Open Source appears to resolve the micro vs. macro economics perspective.
— Enric
February 10th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Tara, I’d be a whole lot more comfortable were not smiley faces used in discussions about very troubled teens, Hitler and Kierkegaard.
Henry Ford, that’s okay.
April 1st, 2007 at 2:08 am
Higher purpose…
I can’t rememember anywhere that I have read more about an ethereal non-sensical and meaningless concept and still come away with the feeling that nobody knows what on earth they’re talking about.
Higher Purpose… whose purpose, what purpose, higher than what purpose, what is a lower purpose?
The key aspect of our language is definition. Without definition, there is no meaning. If anyone is going to talk about a higher purpose, then I’m going to suggest they’re barking out of the wrong hole unless they first offer a definition of exactly what higher purpose is.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
To want to do good, without reward or recognition, is closer to higher purpose than anything else. I’m sure your RSS Reader will be quite special. I’m sure you will not know how much.