tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24817243928045238472024-02-08T04:55:35.940-08:00Ranting and ReflectingJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.comBlogger161125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-68468996689647186972017-04-15T11:26:00.001-07:002017-04-15T11:27:38.718-07:00W.B. Yeat - The Second Comming (And Our Troubled Times)This has nothing to do with natural vs. artificial. But, it caught my attention. So I thought I'd comment on it. <br />
<br />
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;<br />
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,<br />
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere<br />
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;<br />
The best lack all conviction, while the worst<br />
Are full of passionate intensity.<br />
<br />
W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming<br />
<br />
Comment 1: The poem, this excerpt is taken from, was written in the wake of WWI. About 45 years later the last line (not shown here) was picked up by Joan Didion, in the title of an essay, on the rising youth counter culture, called Slouching toward Bethlehem. Now, another 45 years later we find the center is not holding again. It seems like the human race has periodic growing pains. Eventually, we will have to pick up the pieces. But, which of the pieces will we choose to pick up? And, did we pick up the right pieces in the past?<br />
<br />
<br />
Comment 2: This poem also inspired the title of a book on Western Philosophy by Donald Palmer entitled "Does the Center Hold? An Introduction to Western Philosophy". Philosophy attempts, among other things, to maintain the center. It has been somewhat successful for three millennia. Will it continue to work? Who knows?<br />
<br />
If you would like to read the whole poem, you can find it at: <a href="http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html">http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html</a><br />
<br />
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-75397567646915021142017-02-18T20:46:00.001-08:002017-02-18T20:55:11.302-08:00Ralph Waldo EmersonIn his essay "Nature" (1836) Ralph Waldo Emerson observes "Nature, in the common sense, refers to essences untouched by man; space, the air, the river, the leaf. Art is applied to the mixture of his will with the same things, as in a house, a canal, a statue, a picture." Given the line of reasoning that I have been developing, this is an interesting observation for two reasons. First, this dichotomy is much older than I originally thought. And second, according to Emerson, the artificial must be intentional as he requires "the mixture of will". This is interesting because, if we follow Emerson, epiphenomena or side effects don't count. This makes the dichotomy a trichotomy: the natural, the artificial, and the epiphenomena.<br />
<br />
Here is a link to the essay <a href="http://archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/nature.html">Nature</a> The quote is in red in the last paragraph in the introduction. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-51221403718205006472016-10-29T11:12:00.000-07:002016-10-29T11:15:40.418-07:00Is Intent the Problem? How about scope?As we scramble to find ways to distinguish artifacts that other forms of life create such as beaver damns or anthills, we search frantically for distinctions so we can say "Well, there's the difference!" This is actually a feeble minded attempt to maintain one's un-examined worldview rather than a serious attempt to understand the underlying issue. Nonetheless, it does crop up. So we must deal with it. <br />
<br />
We might try to forgive the creation of artifacts in nature by saying that even though things are created in nature that impact the environment of the species that created them, any bad things that happen were not intentional. The were just by products of the species' attempt to survive. So, for example, when a mutating virus creates a virile new copy of itself that wipes out a population, we might say that it didn't really mean any harm. Or when a beaver builds a dam that floods a field near the dam, they didn't do it just to be mean.<br />
<br />
But, if intent is the distinction, then it doesn't get us anywhere. When the automobile was invented, for example, nobody said "let's invent and then mass produce an internal combustion engine that uses fossil fuels and see if we can heat up the planet". I feel fairly confident, that this outcome never occurred to anyone. And, nobody is saying now, "let's burn as much fossil fuel as we can and see how hot we can make it". Granted that there are some unfortunate side effects of the things we do. But, to suggest intent is to way overstate the case.<br />
<br />
Even the characterization of "unfortunate" is a matter of perspective. If you were part of the next species waiting to dominate the planet once the humans had driven themselves into extinction, your might find some of these side effects to be very promising. And, as you saw repeated attempts by humans to prevent or postpone their extinction, you might think - "How selfish!"<br />
<br />
If intent doesn't get us anywhere in making distinctions between the things that humans do which we call artificial and the similar things that other life forms do, then maybe we can think of it as a difference in scale rather than a difference in kind. After all, a beaver damn is not going to flood the planet or cause the sea levels to rise. And an anthill is unlikely to destroy other species. But, is it really true that only humans can do real damage? Aren't don't locust plagues create devastation on a very large scale. How about army ants that eat everything in their path. Or what about mutating viruses, such as the flu, which routinely (in geological time) wipe out other species.<br />
<br />
Let's say that the planet heats up causing the sea levels to rise until it creates a massive extinction event. What happens next? Well, new species will arise and life will go on just as it has done in any number similar events of varying magnitude to life on this planet since life first came to the planet. Granted there might be a few less humans. And their beach front properties aren't worth a dime any more. But, in the cosmological scheme of things, it is business as usual. So, even the attribute of scale will not give us a meaningful distinction. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-14824120045700082262016-10-21T10:37:00.001-07:002016-10-25T13:17:25.481-07:00Are Anthills Artificial?After challenging notions of what is natural, let's turn around and look at it another way and ask - what is artificial? Most people would be comfortable saying that cars, airplanes, factories, cities and the like are artificial. When questioned as to why, they would probably mutter something like - they are man made. They don't occur in nature. We already have a problem with that, though, because it is very unclear what nature is, let alone what occurs in it. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that we all know what nature is and what occurs in it.<br />
<br />
Is this a fair assumption? If we got rid of cars, airplanes, factories, cities and so forth, would the world be free free from artifacts? Don't animals create artifacts as well? What about anthills, beaver dams, bird nests, bee hives, hornet nests, termite mounds and so on? Aren't they artifacts as well? And don't they occur in nature?<br />
<br />
As one scrambles for a defense on this point, they might try to make a distinction between human and animal artifacts by saying that these examples are all of animals creating homes and their creation of homes is not dangerous to the environments in which they live. But, this does not hold up under inspection. Beaver dams, for example, can cause flooding. And insects are inclined to defend their homes with may cause damage to intruders. To be fair, one must recognize that there is a difference of scale in the impacts of human and animal artifacts. But, a difference in scale is not a difference in kind. <br />
<br />
Pushing this point a little further, it isn't just animals creating homes that we need to worry about. Animals, indeed all life forms, create new copies of themselves. And those new copies may introduce new problems. Mutating viruses, for example, provide a constant threat of a pandemic. And, further up the complexity chain, all animals are in a constant state of evolution. As they make new copies of themselves with new evolutionary advantages, these new creations present increasingly greater threats to the environments in which they live.<br />
<br />
So, this notion that artifacts do not occur in nature is misguided and simple minded. We need to look further than the natural vs. artificial distinction to get to the root of the problem. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-48742987914764564782016-09-05T14:47:00.000-07:002016-09-05T14:50:42.284-07:00Are Mindfulness and Meditation Natural?Mindfulness and Meditation are becoming increasingly more popular these days as people look for ways to cope in a world that is becoming increasingly more chaotic and stressful. Some feel that meditation is best in a natural setting that provides a backdrop of natural beauty and tranquility. We have already discussed whether or not these natural settings really are natural. So we don't need to go down that path. But, it does bear asking whether or not meditation in particular or mindfulness in general is natural or artificial.<br />
<br />
People meditate for a variety of reasons. Some meditate because their friends do. Some meditate because it is an affirmation of their world view. Some meditate because it lowers their stress levels or their blood pressure. Some meditate because it makes them more effective at other things that they need or want to do. It is not up to me to judge whether any of these reasons are good or bad. But, I wanted to allow for the fact that there are many reasons for meditation and I am going to focus on just one.<br />
<br />
Many people who meditate do so because it helps quiet their minds. We are constantly bombarded with thoughts that create stress or make us fearful or unhappy.This is sometimes referred to as "Monkey Mind" but it is an experience that most people experience. Thoughts pop into your head, sometimes in rapid fire, that cause you concern and stress. "My boss gave me a funny look this morning. Am I going to loose my job?", "My car made a funny noise. I hope it isn't going to be something expensive.", "That's a funny bump on my arm. Is it a bug bite, or melanoma? If its melanoma, did I catch it in time?", "We are going out with a new couple tonight. I hope they aren't judgemental. I really don't like judgemental people", and so on, and so on.<br />
<br />
Why does this happen? Evolutionary biologists explain this in a way that is making great headway into the mindfulness community. First, we evolved an advanced neo-cortex which allows us to model the world in which we live and make predictions. This ability to anticipate rather than participate saved a lot of our hominid ancestors from predators and thus created an evolutionary advantage.In addition, our brain generates scenarios and lobs them into our conscious mind for consideration. "Is that grayish brown blog a lion or a rock?"<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, our minds have gotten really good at generating scenarios as we have gotten really bad at distinguishing between a remote scenario and one that is worthy of consideration and we suffer from the emotional impact of too many negative although very unlikely scenarios. So, we have to calm our minds and meditation is a great way to do that. But, if meditation is an attempt to overcome millennia of natural evolution, can it really be considered natural? I would strongly argue that it isn't. Meditation is technique developed by humans to overcome negative aspects of our natural evolution. Meditation is artificial and it is a good thing. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-75373034697624879552016-08-29T11:28:00.000-07:002016-08-29T11:28:15.914-07:00Is "Act Naturally" an Oxymoron?We think we like people who "act naturally". In fact, we have derogatory terms for people who do not act naturally. We call them phonies. We call them insincere. But, upon inspection, we will see that we really don't want people to "act naturally" and that the world would simply not work if people were not insincere.<br />
<br />
What is "natural" behavior? Well, if we follow our evolving definition of what it means to be natural, we can see that natural behavior is behavior that has not been influence by mankind. If we did, indeed, act naturally, we would act like wild animals. We would kill, steal, fight over mates and territory, and would certainly not feel obligated in any way to observe social amenities. Instead of voting, we would have politicians fight it out with each other. If one was hungry, you would just steal food from a weaker member of society. If your neighbor's house was nicer, you would just take it over and kick them out as long as you were physically superior. No, we don't really want people to go around acting naturally.<br />
<br />
In place of acting naturally, we have thousands of years of evolving norms that we adopt, centuries of cultural development, decades of things that are fashionable, and years of current fads that we follow. Not only do we have these constructs, but they are conveyed in stories, laws, and TV shows. "Correct behavior" could not be further from natural. It is entirely an artificial construct (such as manners), reinforced by other artificial constructs (such as media).<br />
<br />
Imagine encountering someone and asking how they are. And, in response, they actually tell you. You would wonder what is wrong with that person. Imagine meeting somebody new and instead of saying "nice to meet you", they say, "I really don't like meeting new people, so don't bother to tell me your name." No, natural behavior is not what we are looking for. And we really do want people to be insincere. So, clearly, something other than the natural/artificial dichotomy is going on.But, what is it?<br />
<br />
<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-75366104824939080212016-08-23T11:58:00.000-07:002016-08-23T11:58:31.764-07:00Is Natural Food Really Natural?You hear a lot these days about eating natural food while avoiding artificial foods such as genetically modified organisms or GMOs. I am not sure that this is a meaningful dichotomy and would argue that there is no such thing as "natural" food.<br />
<br />
I made the distinction in a previous post between natural and artificial saying that something is natural if it is a product of nature while we can think of it as artificial if it is caused or created by humans. Is the food we eat today, a product of nature? Honestly, I don't see how anyone can claim that anything we eat today is natural.<br />
<br />
Around 10,000 years ago humans gave up their hunting and gathering lifestyle in order to settle down and stay in one place. In order to feed themselves they had to start farming and raising animals for food. I realize that I have hazed over the complexity of this transition. But the transition is not part of the argument I am making. The argument I am making is that humans have not eaten any natural food for over ten thousand years.<br />
<br />
As people settled down, they began planting seeds in specific locations rather than gathering the grains from where ever they naturally grew. Over time they began selecting seeds from more desirable plants. Eventually, they started getting scientific about crop production and eventually got down to the DNA level with GMOs. The point here is that GMOs are not a different kind of thing from natural plants. They are merely the latest human innovation in attempting to improve the food supply. If you really want natural food, you need to go out to a pristine field somewhere and gather it in its natural state hoping that there are no human finger prints on it.<br />
<br />
A similar argument can be made for animals which were fed and bred to produce more desirable results. The animals, as well as the plants, were not only selectively bred but they were protected against diseases by antibiotics and any number of other interventions. So, if you want a natural steak, you would have to go out to that pristine field and hope to find a woolly mammoth, hoping further that it hasn't eaten all your natural grain.<br />
<br />
Natural vs. artificial is not the distinction we are looking for. But, if it isn't, what are we concerned about? Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-2056612204243381612016-08-17T14:39:00.002-07:002016-08-18T07:57:32.999-07:00Caused vs CreatedI said, in the last post, "Something is natural if it is caused or created by nature and not caused
or created by mankind. Something is artificial if it is caused or
created by mankind" I acknowledged that this may have to change and already I am beginning to doubt if this definition will work.<br />
<br />
What is the difference between something that is caused and something that is created? Let's take some extreme examples. If lightning strikes your house and causes a fire, we would be fairly comfortable claiming that the lightning "caused" the fire but not very comfortable claiming that the lightning created the fire. On the other hand, if the person who lives in the house make a marble statue to honor the god of lightning in order to protect the house, we would be fairly comfortable in saying that the homeowner created the statue, while uncomfortable saying that the homeowner caused the statue. This is not as obvious as it sounds because if we view this activity in terms of Aristotle's Four Causes, one would have to acknowledge that the homeowner did cause the statue, although we don't look at things that way anymore.<br />
<br />
To explore this line of reasoning, let's say that A causes B if B is an outcome, side product, or epi-phenomenon of A. Alternatively, A creates B if the production of B is an intentional activity of A.This still does not quite work. If the homeowner threw gasoline on the house and then lit it, we would say that the homeowner caused the fire but might be reluctant to say that the homeowner created the fire. On the other hand the homeowner definitely created the statue and it would seem silly to say the homeowner caused the statue. So, in order to create we need not only intentional activity, but we need the thing created to be unique and brought into existence by the creator and not likely to be brought into existence any other way.<br />
<br />
This may feel a little tedious, but we cannot make clear value judgements about things unless we clearly know what those things are. In addition we need to know what the consequences of those things are in order to assess their value. That also requires clear definitions. We could go on with the hair splitting of meanings but will drop it for now and come back to it later. Next we will look at some things and attempt to determine, using our current definitions, whether or not they are natural. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-37806031252127680532016-08-08T10:31:00.003-07:002016-08-08T10:31:57.274-07:00Evolving to the ArtificialThere is a misunderstood and unfortunate dichotomy between the natural and the artificial that has created a lot of paranoia about eating genetically modified organisms or a day in the future when robots take over mankind and enslave us. While there are issues to be addressed, these paranoid ravings are not at all productive in addressing them. Over the next few posts I want to explore the meanings of natural and artificial, and see if we can get down to the real concerns, and hopefully address a few of them.<br />
<br />
What is the difference between natural and artificial? And is the artificial, whether it be intelligence or some other creation a threat to humanity or is it merely the realization of mankind's destiny? What is the role of nature in our lives and what is the role of the artificial? And when we refer to the natural are we always referring to something good? What threats and benefits do we derive from the natural and the artificial. and what can we do to have more of the benefits and less of threats? <br />
<br />
These are big questions and cannot be addressed directly without developing some foundation. So, let's begin with the question - what is the difference between natural and artificial. Something is natural if it is caused or created by nature and not caused or created by mankind. Something is artificial if it is caused or created by mankind. We may have to modify this definition later as we further explore the topic. But, this is a workable definition for now.<br />
<br />
Most people would agree that a primeval wilderness forest is natural and a robot is artificial as these two examples are at opposite ends of the spectrum. But, if the forest is going to be considered natural then nothing about its current state can be caused or created by mankind. So, if anything was done to influence the ecology of the forest such as laws or barriers to protect it from the surrounding environment, then it is no longer natural. If any effort was made to influence the flora or fauna in any way then it is no longer natural. Sometimes people with wonderfully good intentions do things in any attempt to protect nature. But, the very act of protecting reduces the naturalness that they are trying to protect. Given the extent to which mankind has come to dominate the globe, it would be very difficult to find anything on the planet that is truly natural. And any attempt to remedy this situation would further reduce the existence of anything truly natural on the planet.<br />
<br />
We may try to back off a little and say that something is still natural if it has not been "intentionally" caused or created by mankind. The allows us to keep the robot in the artificial category while allowing aspects of nature that have only suffered side effects of mankind to still be in the natural category. But, further inspection shows that this doesn't work either. Mankind did not intentionally create global warming. So, global warming and climate change would have to be considered natural.<br />
<br />
Further, the robot may not be excluded from the category of natural because it is not clear if the robot was "intentionally" caused by mankind or just the outcome of mankind's curiosity and natural tendency to make tools of varying levels of sophistication. When a lion attacks a zebra and causes its death, we see that as just part of nature because the lion is just following its natural tendencies. When a human creates a tool, why isn't that just an expression of the human's natural tendencies.<br />
<br />
Already the dichotomy has become a little murky and we need to explore it a little further and in a little more depth. <br />
<br />
<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-372967278717437272016-08-03T14:38:00.002-07:002016-08-03T14:38:54.486-07:00There is a Message in the MessageYes, my last post was in January of 2015. That was a year and a half ago. I was giving tips on writing and in the last post I promised to elaborate on the list of items that I had offered. And then, nothing happened. Well, something did happen. I got distracted. I don't remember what it was. But whatever it was distracted me so that I forgot all about blogging. I wasn't sitting on the couch watching TV all day, as I never do that. And I was working. In the last year and a half I wrote a research paper entitled "What is Information" which I am presenting at a conference in a week or so. I developed a course in Python programming. And, yes, I worked on my writing.<br />
<br />
At some point, earlier, in this blog I wrote about self-publishing. I still plan to do that although it may take me a while to get around to it. But, in order to make progress, I tried to write an essay every day so that when I finally got around to publishing a book of essays, I would have some rough drafts to work with. I haven't counted how many essays I wrote during that time but I would guess around 200-300. And I am still cranking them out although not every day.<br />
<br />
I plan to not only write but to illustrate my writing as well. Unfortunately, I don't know how to draw. So, I put away the essays for a while to concentrate on teaching myself how to draw. I am making good progress but still have a way to go. Learning to draw is a lot like learning to write. Just do it every day. Look for ways to improve. Look for techniques to over come problems you encounter. Look at what others have done. And eventually, you will figure it out.<br />
<br />
But most of all (and this is the continuity message in this post) I do what I feel like doing. I always have a number of tasks going on. There is always something I am getting tired of. And there is always something I feel like doing. So, I might write everyday until it isn't fun any more. Then I might work on lectures for a class that needs a little work. Then, I might obsesses over classic novels (btw Gone with the Wind is truly outstanding). Then my focus may turn to sketching, fishing, golf, mindfulness, jigsaw puzzles, cooking or any number of other interests. Here is the key. You need to pursue things with passion and discipline. But, your attention will always wear out at some point. Since you are a thousand times more productive when you are excited about something, you should always work on something you are excited about.<br />
<br />
This blog came to my attention a day or so ago and this morning I was writing an essay on Natural vs. Artificial in which I wanted to put the rising paranoia about artificial intelligence into perspective. The two came together, and I thought "what a great topic for my blog". So, here I am. Or, more dramiatically.... "I'm back"Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-73201043574777560642015-01-30T06:57:00.000-08:002015-01-30T07:36:15.406-08:00How Did I Come Up With That List?Before diving into the elements of the list I just provided, a good question to ask is - how did I come up with the list. The answer is that I took a piece of paper, jotted a few things down, thought for a minute, scratched a couple out, and added a couple more. There is no magic in it. And the more often you do things like this the easier it will get. And, I should mention that if you want your list to be perfect and read by everyone, then you should probably stop right now. Your list will be one of thousands of writing exercises. And out of those thousands of writing exercise a few gems will emerge. But, you won't know, as you start out, which will be the gems and which will be practice writing exercises. <br />
<br />
So, I have a list and the next thing to do is to try to make it work. This is what I will be doing over the next few posts. I will create as good of an argument as I can for each of the items. At the end, I might get rid of an item. I might merge two items. I might add one or more items. But, the purpose of the list is not to be right or perfect. The purpose of the list is to get you started.<br />
<br />
Once you have started on the list, and tried to make a solid argument for each, you will find that your cognitive juices are flowing. New ideas come to mind. You see existing ideas in a new light. You decide some of the ideas weren't as good as you thought. But, you are rolling. And that is the purpose of the list.<br />
<br />
I attended a writing workshop many years ago where the instructor said that the reason you get writer's block is that you don't have anything to say. If you have something to say, the words will flow. So, if you don't have anything to say, you need to get something to say. There are many ways to do that. But, a tried an true way that I use a lot is to make a list and get going with it. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-91951552606546382552015-01-24T06:54:00.003-08:002015-01-24T06:54:58.973-08:00Keys to Good WritingThere are thousands of books on writing and nobody has a preferred position on it. I have some favorites that suit my style (both my cognitive style and my writing style), but different books provide different things because different people need different things. In this piece, I thought I would provide some ideas off the top of my head, expand upon them in the next few posts, and then follow up with a revision. That is, after all, how I write and I thought that allowing you to see the underlying evolving thought processes might be useful. Here are the keys to good writing in no particular order:<br />
<br />
1) Curiosity - You need something to write about, and something that interests you may very well interest others.<br />
<br />
2) Reading - Hearing the voice of others will help you craft your own voice as well as giving you ideas on useful techniques.<br />
<br />
3) Need for Expression - Once you have figured something out or created something, you must have a desire to share it with others.<br />
<br />
4) Writing Practice - Just like learning to play a musical instrument takes a lot of practice, learning to write takes a lot of practice as well. Nobody ever just picked up a saxophone and played hot jazz without years of practice. And nobody every just picked up a pen and wrote the great American novel.<br />
<br />
5) Writing for a Target - Different kinds of writing require different styles. You have to know who you are writing for and tailor your writing for that target.<br />
<br />
6) Determination - You have to stick with it way longer than you would ever imagine. And if that is daunting, you might want to consider something else.<br />
<br />
This is my working outline. Over the next several posts I will elaborate on these and we will see where this little writing exercise goes.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-55966541573599467932015-01-16T06:45:00.001-08:002015-01-16T06:45:35.434-08:00Self PublishingHere is something I am thinking about a lot these days. We have seen both a dramatic rise and a change in kind with Self Publishing since Amazon got in the game. It used to be, not so many years ago, that self publishing options were call "Vanity Press". The idea was that if you had to pay to have your work published; if you couldn't find a publisher to publish it; then your work was not worth publishing. And, if you paid to have it published then you were doing so to satisfy your own vanity. Most people who did this landed up with boxes of their book in their garages which they gave away to friends and relatives.<br />
<br />
That isn't to say that nobody made any money on self publishing. Some did extraordinarily well. But, there were very few. This was because publishing houses controlled the means of distribution. So most self publishers could not get their books to the public. And they sat in boxes in the garage.<br />
<br />
I have been carrying on in my <a href="http://patternsandpredictions.blogspot.com/">Patterns and Predictions</a> blog about <a href="http://patternsandpredictions.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-dying-hegemonies-of-access.html">Dying Hegemonies of Access</a> . The premise is that industries who primary role was to provide access to a resource that technology can provide better access to do not have a bright future. Publishing is, in my opinion, on of those Dying Hegemonies.<br />
<br />
Any body can publish a book these days on Amazon. There is a bit more to it than this as there are Kindle books and hard copies. Of course, one must have writing skills and something to write about. But, But of all the writers who are capable of cranking out something worth buying, only a tiny fraction of them saw their books in book stores. Now, with these new options for self publishing, the marketplace is wide open. And Amazon is not only vehicle for self publishing. It just happens to be more well known. <br />
<br />
I also don't want to imply that everyone who publishes this way is going to be successful. But, historically, publishing houses controlled which books were published and which books got into book stores. This is still true for a majority of books published today. But, that is changing and it is changing very rapidly. Self publishing is beginning to challenge traditional publishing in the same way that bloggers and people using their smart phones to make videos challenged traditional journalism. More about this to come. <br />
<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-45229152141132638732015-01-09T05:21:00.000-08:002015-01-09T05:21:04.350-08:00Things are Always Exactly the Way They are Supposed to BeI was writing a post in my <a href="http://patternsandpredictions.blogspot.com/">Patterns and Predictions</a> blog about the Dying Hegemonies of Access. In this particular post, I was using journalism as an example. Access to news has changed dramatically from the old days of daily newspapers and evening news shows to our current access to blogs, forums, online videos and social media. As I was writing the post I found myself tempted, at several points, to evaluate the change. There were good and bad things about the old way and good and bad things about the new way. Ultimately, I avoided the issue by saying "it will all work itself out over time". As I wrote that, something that I used to say came back to me. And that is "Things are Always Exactly the Way They are Supposed to Be" I didn't want to get into that in the other post as the point was to provide an example of a Dying Hegemony of Access. But, I thought it might be fun to explain it here.<br />
<br />
First, I need to make a distinction between the natural and the artificial. This distinction is not nearly as clear as I am going to make it. But, consider the following. A band of early humans go out for a hunt and bring back some prey for food. That is natural. They are following their instincts for survival. Then, say, they capture some animals, put them in a pen, breed them, and use that as a source of food. That is artificial. When we take the world as it is, that natural. When we modify the world to suit our needs, that is artificial.<br />
<br />
When a natural disaster occurs, we may be very upset that it occurred, but we accept it because it is natural. So, when a hurricane wipes out a coastal town we are upset. But, since it was an act of nature we are inclined to accept it as just the way things are.When an artificial disaster occurs, such as an airplane crash or an explosion at a chemical factory, we are much less likely to just accept it. <br />
<br />
When artificial things are not to our liking we tend to stress about them and feel like something should be done. And it may be true that something should be done. But, it is not true that we should stress about it. Does anyone stress about the fact that water flows downhill? Of course not. That would be silly. Does anyone stress about the fact that a mountain range prevents rain in a valley? No. They may look for ways to get rain. But we don't have the added stress of feeling that things are somehow wrong.<br />
<br />
The point of all this is to so that it is natural for people to create things that are artificial. Sometimes, when we do, it works out great. Sometimes it doesn't. But, it is part of our natural to tinker. Hence, even our artifacts are natural. And we shouldn't stress about the things we do. If they are not to our liking we can try to change them. But, if you step back a bit and see our attempts to modify our environment it is not different than a beaver building a dam or bees building a hive. Some times it works out and some times it doesn't. No need to stress about it. Everything is always exactly the way it should be. If it doesn't suit our needs we can try to change it. But, it is just our human values that make it wrong. The word wrong simply does not apply to nature. <br />
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-40349808418384923582015-01-02T11:57:00.000-08:002015-01-02T11:57:14.210-08:00One Last Thought - Avoid Riding the WaveWhen waves of change come along, one can adopt one of three strategies: get bowled over by the wave, adjust to the waves, or ride the waves. Getting bowled over is not a good strategy but it is the implicit strategy of those who are in denial about the change. Riding he wave sounds like a good strategy and while that is seductive, it is fraught with problems. Of all the people that ride the wave a very, very small number become very, very successful. Most just get dumped off and crash. It takes special talent to ride the wave. And while we know about those notable few who do, we never hear about the tens of thousands who did not handle it all as well. Even if you do manage to ride the wave successfully, you will be defined by the wave. When the wave subsides, which it always does you will be left having to redefine yourself anyway. <br />
<br />
Adjusting to the wave is the best idea. Acknowledge that change is coming. Accept it and incorporate it into your life. Try to create a new vision of yourself adjusting over time to the changes that are occurring. Take small steps to respond to the changes. Over time as things begin to calm down again, you will be in a good position to take advantage of the new situation. <br />
<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-24383385053346372302014-12-25T13:28:00.001-08:002014-12-25T13:28:35.554-08:00Change is in the Air – How to CopeI should mention, as a matter of perspective, that change is always in the air. Life never remains static. The questions to ask about change are - how big is the change and how much will it affect you and the things you care about. For example, the introduction of web technology caused massive changes for some and relatively minor changes for others. If you were the owner of a local independent bookstore, a journalist, or in one of the many professions that were profoundly altered by the web, then the changes to your life were pretty massive. However, if you were someone who used to order products from a catalog and just started ordering them on the web instead, the changes were not that great. For any change, there are those who will see it as "everything changed" and others who will see it as "just a different way of doing what you always have done before".<br />
<br />
Massive changes can affect your identity as well as your profession. For example, if you were a steel working when the steel industry evaporated, it was not only a professional dislocation but a loss of identity. Even if you managed to land a new job, with good prospects, the way you viewed your self in the steel industry was probably very different from the way you see yourself trying to climb the corporate ladder. So even if you managed to recover financially, creating a new identity would still be a challenge. <br />
<br />
Let us assume, for the sake of this post, that you are one of those whose life will change significantly. What can yo do to ? It is, as they say, easier said than done. But, the first step is to avoid denial. If things around you are changing in significant ways, you have two choices: accept that things are changing, or deny the change and put your fate in the turbulent forces of the change. Most people would say that avoiding denial and accepting the change is the way to go. But, most people actually do the opposite. One of my favorite pundits, Gerald Weinberg, once said something to the effect that people will only change to keep something bigger from changing. I think there is a lot of wisdom in that. Since one's identify and profession are pretty big things, they are only likely to change them to keep something bigger from changing like their livelihood and their ability to survive.<br />
<br />
Once you have accepted that change is occurring the next step is to adapt. This is a challenge because you are replacing the familiar with the unfamiliar, the predictable with the unpredictable, and security with risk. Still, you need to find a way to incorporate the change into your life. And here is a tip that might help. If you had to move to a new city for some reason you would experience many of the same things. But, you wouldn't stay locked up in your apartment. You would go out and find where the shops are. You would find what attractions the new city offered. You would find out how the transportation system worked, what local customs were and so on. Initially, it would all be strange. But eventually, it would become familiar. When change comes don't stay locked up in the past. Get out and find out what is going on. Initially, it will be strange. But eventually it will become familiar. <br />
<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-64086599098047618402014-12-17T18:51:00.002-08:002014-12-17T18:52:22.861-08:00Refine, Test, Refine More. Test MoreA pattern is a much less rigorous form of a scientific theory. That is to say that the pattern is extracted from experience in an attempt to explain it economically. And the pattern, like a theory, must be hardened through testing. So, if you find a useful pattern you must test it in two ways. First, you must make sure that it does, indeed, explain the phenomenon. Second, you must use the pattern to predict future events and see if it holds up under that requirement. Supposing that it does, you must keep looking for ways to refute your pattern. Over time, if you cannot refute the pattern then it is probably a pretty good pattern. And if you do manage to refute, you might try refining it. However, as you attempt to refute your theory, you must be aware of some troublesome cognitive biases. That is we are inclined to accept evidence that supports our theory or pattern while dismissing data which refutes it. We want our pattern to be correct. But, in order to make it correct, we have to view it critically, rejecting aspects of it that don't fit and continuing to challenge the parts that seem to fit. Over time, if you objectively challenge the pattern, you will strengthen it and increase its utility.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-65287397544162547112014-12-13T06:34:00.000-08:002014-12-13T06:34:01.675-08:00How to Get a Clue or How Can You Get Better at Recognizing Patterns?If you follow the stock market, you might notice that when stock prices go up too fast or go up for an extended period of time there is a good chance they will tumble back down at bit. The tumble may be minor or significant. But, we can see a pattern here which we will call "What goes up, must come down".<br />
<br />
This pattern does not just apply to stocks. We can see a very similar pattern in the careers of celebrities and politicians - riding high one day and in free fall the next. It also happens with hit music, fashions and fads. It might even happen in your love life or your job. It is a useful pattern that we see in many very diverse situations.<br />
<br />
The "What goes up, must come down" pattern is simplistic but it is a place to start. Once we recognize this pattern we can refine our understanding of the phenomenon which the pattern describes. We can ask questions like - do difference situations have a different pattern in their rise and fall. Do some things go up fast and fall just as quickly while others grind up slowly and go down like a beach ball filled with water? Are there elements of situations that give us a clue regarding which rise and fall pattern they might fit? Once we have one pattern, no matter how simple it may be, we can expand it into a whole family of other patterns.<br />
<br />
Are there different patterns that describe the same situation? For example, we just used the "What goes up, must go down" pattern to describe your love life. Maybe other patterns will do just as well. Let's say we have a pattern of "Initial euphoria, disillusionment, accepting reality" which also applies to your love life. Perhaps this pattern could apply to corporate mergers, or peace treaties.<br />
<br />
The point here is that the more patterns you can recognize the more situations you can apply them in and the more nuanced your understanding of phenomena can become. So, start looking for patterns and when you find one try applying it to other situations. And begin creating more nuanced patterns for specific situations. Over time you will develop a collection of patterns that you can apply to a variety of situations. But that, it only the beginning.<br />
<br />
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-25459468148290944622014-11-29T12:57:00.001-08:002014-11-29T12:58:09.411-08:00Beware: Clues are Only PossibilitiesAlthough I have provided several clues that led me to believe that we are moving into chaotic times, you shouldn't believe this simply based upon clues and neither do I. Clues lead to possibilities not certainties. Just because you find a resonate pattern to organize your thoughts does not mean that you have it right. You need evidence and the more evidence you have the more you can believe you are on the right track.<br />
<br />
So, how do you proceed? Step One is, of course, recognizing patterns. If you are not good at recognizing patterns, you will have to rely on patterns that other people have recognized. But, given that you have a pattern to work with, there are some additional steps you can take in both discovery and validation.<br />
<br />
An initial validation step is needed to make sure the pattern is valid. For example, let's say that you become aware of the economic pattern that the top 1% of the wealthy in the United States control the majority of the wealth. The first question you have to ask is - is this really true?<br />
<br />
There have certainly been a lot of news stories claiming this so you should read and listen a little more critically as news stories are often spun based upon the beliefs and worldview of the journalist or newspaper. I don't mean to suggest that you are being misled. I merely mean to point out that there is no objective view of a social phenomenon and any analysis represents a particular interpretation. <br />
<br />
For discovery purposes, ask if this pattern is occurring elsewhere. So, let's say, for example, that you become aware of the economic pattern that the top 1% of the wealthy in the United States control the majority of the wealth. Is this occurring in other areas as well? Are the top 1% of researchers or artists producing the majority of the research or art? Are the top 1% of politically active families producing the majority of the politicians?The more places you can find the pattern, the more useful the pattern might be.<br />
<br />
You can try explaining the pattern to other people. Some will reject it simply because it is not what they think. If this is the case, you should be polite but not waste a lot of time with them. Some will find legitimate flaws in what you have said and will express them. You need to reconcile these flaws with what you believe to be true about the pattern. If you cannot then the pattern may be flaws. You might be able to adjust it or fix it. But that will require some work. If the work isn't worth it, you should drop it. If you do manage to reconcile the flaws, you have probably gained, along the way, greater insight into the pattern and the phenomenon it represents.<br />
<br />
Finally, you need to make a sincere attempt to disprove what you believe about the pattern. Ask yourself what could be true that would disprove the pattern or what thing might happen in the future to dispute it. As time goes by, if you are sincerely trying to find evidence that the pattern does not work and you fail to, it is probably a pretty good pattern. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-19695685826020077612014-11-21T05:09:00.000-08:002014-11-21T05:09:50.468-08:00What To Do in Chaotic TimesLet us assume for the moment that I am on to something with this dichotomy I have identified with normal times and chaotic times. This is not a forgone conclusion, but I will come back to that later.<br />
<br />
How do you behave differently to be successful in chaotic times? As it turns out, the answer is quite simple, at least superficially. In normal times, you set goals, make plans, and pursue your goals. In chaotic times you cannot set goals and make plans because things are in a state of flux. This, after all, is what got me to thinking about this initially. Instead of setting goals, you have to look for opportunities. You may not know what is going to happen. But, when suitable opportunities arise, you must be prepared to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
How do you prepare yourself to take advantage of opportunities in chaotic times? This is a little trickier but still not that difficult.<br />
<br />
Figure out, in general, what you are good at.<br />
<br />
Figure out what kinds of opportunities might arise that would need the things you are good at.<br />
<br />
Shore up your strengths so you are ready to take advantage of opportunities. This simply means that you should work on getting better at the things you are good at. <br />
<br />
Make sure your are psychologically ready to look for opportunities.You need to be open to new things or things that do not look exactly like what you were expecting. You don't want to pass up a good opportunity just because you did not recognize it. <br />
<br />
Make sure you position yourself to know about the right kinds of opportunities as they arise. This involves networking and keeping up with sources that are likely to provide information that you need.<br />
<br />
Finally, you need to be flexible. If you make mistakes, learn from them. If you got something wrong be prepared to make adjustments to get it right. Don't be afraid to take chances or experiment. <br />
<br />
Does this mean you should quit your job and wait for opportunities? No, you need to sustain yourself until something good comes along. However, you have time to invest in sustaining yourself and time to invest in your future. The time you invest in your future should be directed at preparing yourself to take advantage of opportunities. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-33564314866088806502014-11-14T08:25:00.000-08:002014-11-14T08:26:17.701-08:00Clue Four: SteppenwolfThese clues are coming from all over the place. But when patterns come together, it is because the pieces of the puzzle resonate with things that you might not even notice otherwise. That is what makes them clues. And I would also emphasize that they are clues because they are useful patterns for organizing your thinking about nagging hunches and intuitions. They are not messages from beyond in some weird mystical way. Well, let me take that back. I suppose they are messages from beyond in some weird mystical way. Just not the weird mystical way that most people might think of them. <br />
<br />
In this case, however, there was a connection. The Mad Men epiphany got me to thinking about the turbulence of the 1960's which brought to mind a novel by Herman Hesse which was very popular at the time. The novel was entitled Steppenwolf and the name was popularized by a rock band who adopted the name. The novel was actually published in 1927 and republished in the 1960's due to its popularity at the time. And, surprisingly, it was republished again just a few years ago.<br />
<br />
The main character in Steppenwolf was an individual caught between cultures who did not belong to either. He came to represent people caught between two cultures in the case of cultural change. Any culture, according to Hesse, has good things and bad things about it. But, on the balance, the good things out weight the bad. So, for anyone living in a given culture, life is generally tolerable. However, for people caught between cultures, life can be brutal. Consider, for example, a modern person transported back to Medieval Europe. Life would be horrible. However, if you took someone from Medieval Europe and transported them to the modern age, life would be equally as horrible.<br />
<br />
People in the 1920's were undergoing substantial cultural change in a Post WWI environment, with prohibition, bath tub gin, flappers and a run away stock market. They were caught between the dying world order of the previous century and the nascent new order which would take a while to form. In the 1960's the Baby Boomers saw massive cultural change as well, which is why the book became so popular again. It is interesting to note that if you add 40 years to 1927 you get 1967. And if you add another 40 years you get 2007. All at the brink of impending massive social change. I don't want to make too much of this. But, it is an interesting pattern.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, this notion of transition between cultural norms gave further credibility to the idea that was brewing in the back of my mind. It suggested that we might be in chaotic times because we were at the brink of another wave of massive social change which has yet to take form. And we might be able to get some insights by looking back to the 1920's and 1960's. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-25878584460506130082014-11-07T06:48:00.000-08:002014-11-07T06:49:02.200-08:00Clue Three: Mad MenI was watching Morning Joe (a news commentary show on MS NBC) one morning a few months ago and they had a guest on who was the script writer for the very popular TV show Mad Men. The discussion, around the table, was about the early 1960's era and why that time period resonated so much with audiences today. As the discussion developed examples started popping up of instances they could remember of people who were part of the Mad Men era that could not deal with the changes that would occur later in the decade. I think it was Joe Scarborough who said that his father liked the early Beatles but by the time Rubber Soul came out he no longer understood was was happening. When he said that, the wheels began turning.<br />
<br />
The transition from Mad Men to Woodstock was a period of major cultural upheaval in this country and many others as well. For most Baby Boomers it represented the defining moments of their lives. For the sake of simplicity I am going to reduce this to a larger pattern and that is - the old giving way to the new. In this case the Mad Men represented the old culture and Woodstock represented the new.<br />
<br />
Now we are approaching a similar transition only the Baby Boomers represent the old and the rising Millenials represent the new. I believe that the show resonates with Baby Boomers because they subconsciously see themselves in Mad Men - people riding high in a belief system that is about to crash. I think it also resonates with Millenials but for a different reason. For the Millenials it is a reminder that their day will come.<br />
<br />
Going back, for a moment to this idea of normal times vs chaotic times we can see the pattern once again. When the old way is the default world view we have normal times. When the new replaces the old we have chaotic times. When the new becomes the default world view we have normal times again. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-20287728174242478302014-10-31T06:15:00.002-07:002014-10-31T06:15:49.510-07:00Clue Two: Thomas KuhnAs I mentioned earlier, clues are not given to you by some guiding force. And clues are not discovered along the way. Clues are merely ideas or patterns that resonate with what we are thinking and help us put form to those nagging fuzzy ideas in the backs of our minds. So, my second clue seems even more unrelated than the first one.<br />
<br />
I have been working on a very difficult paper on the philosophy of information systems. Earlier in the data gathering stage I was reviewing a lot of books and articles that I though might be useful in helping me write the paper. I went off on several side roads which is not at all uncommon in these pursuits. One of those side roads was into the philosophy of science. I was wondering, at the time, how the philosophy of science might be different for research in information systems than it is natural or social sciences. As I was pondering this I picked up some classic works by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn along with a variety of lessor known books that I felt might be useful.<br />
<br />
While pondering Kuhn, the idea of "normal science" kept ricocheting around in my subconscious. At the risk of over simplifying this idea allow me to explain it in a very cursory manner. Most of the time, in a scientific field, there is a fair amount of agreement on what problems it is trying to solve, what methods lead to legitimate results, what counts as evidence and so on. The questions appear to be answerable. And the methods appear to be adequate for answering the questions. This is what is referred to a "normal science". Then a disruption comes along. There are anomalies that cannot be explained or important questions that cannot be answered.<br />
<br />
When this happens, the field must adjust. New ideas and methods must be considered as scientists attempt to account for the anomalies or make progress on the unanswered questions. Over time some of these new ideas will become mainstream and the field will settle back down to "normal science"<br />
<br />
Now, I did not intend this post to be a short lecture on the philosophy of science. But, I needed to explain that in order to explain how it became a clue.It occurred to me that my goal setting behavior was disrupted because it was not clear to me what was important to achieve. I could not fix on a goal or set of goals because things were in such a state of flux - that not only were the targets moving but what qualified as a target was changing as well. Thinking about Kuhn's concept of "normal science" I thought the pattern fit well to the social, economic and political spheres as well. There are normal times when you know what your are trying to achieve and how to achieve it. In normal times you can set goals and pursue them. However, in the times between normal times, the times I refer to as "chaotic" things are in a state of flux and it is difficult to set goals in order to make progress. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-28908310034959635202014-10-24T09:02:00.002-07:002014-10-24T09:02:48.719-07:00Clue One: The Folly of Goal SettingI am almost pathological in my goal setting behavior. I have a five year plan and a ten year plan. I don't actually write these down. But, I do, generally, have a pretty good idea what I would like to accomplish in various time frames. I can't say that I always accomplish everything as I have goals at varying levels of important. There are must do goals, goals that I would like to accomplish, and goals that might be fun if I get around to them.<br />
<br />
Every year I make News Year's Resolutions which I do write down. I actually check the resolutions periodically to see if I am on track for the year. I don't always accomplish all of these either. Most do get accomplished to some degree. One or two might be bumped to the next year. And there are those that I abandon after reflecting on them and deciding that that are not worthy goals.I set goals for each month and have a To Do List everyday. The same applies to these as far as accomplishing them. <br />
<br />
I am not revealing all this to convince your that I should be on some sort of OCD medication. Rather, it is to establish the fact that goal setting and goal driven behavior is just a part of my nature. That is, until just a few years ago.<br />
<br />
I usually start working on my list of New Year's Resolutions in early Fall. I do this because I want to have time to think through the goals that I will be dedicating my time to in the following year. I'll jot them down, reflect on them, and revise them so that I have a pretty solid list when the New Year shows up. But, when I began to ponder my initiatives a few years ago, I found that I was incapable of identifying any reasonable goals. This was a huge problem and I began to give it some pretty serious thought.<br />
<br />
After reflecting on this for a while, I realized that the reason why I was having trouble setting goals was that the future was in a state of flux. I am usually pretty good at predicting, in general terms, what is likely to happen. I do not have any clairvoyant talents. I just know a few tricks. I ramble on about these in another one of my sporadically attended blogs <a href="http://patternsandpredictions.blogspot.com/">Patterns and Predictions</a> which you can look at if you feel so inclined.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, I realized that with the future largely opaque to me we must be in an unusual time. And that was my first clue. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481724392804523847.post-71297513754594284382014-10-17T10:47:00.000-07:002014-10-17T10:47:04.023-07:00Normal Times vs. Chaotic TimesHere is something I have been thinking about a bit lately. It seems like there is something different about the times we are currently in. Everybody that I talk to seem to feel it somehow. But nobody can put it into any context. We have been in an extended recession. The usual economic rules don't seem to be working. Nobody seems to know what to do. We have a great deal of global unrest punctuated by crises like the Ebola epidemic. The US Congress can't seem to get anything done. There is great political division across the US. And, it is not limited to political and economic realms. In their personal lives, people seem to be unsettled and no longer deriving the satisfaction they once derived. People used to feel that if you worked hard and pursued your goals, you would get somewhere. Now that seems to be fanciful musings from the past. Something is different. If I had to summarize it in a sound bite, I would say that nobody seems to know what is going on and nobody seems to know what to do about it. So, I began thinking about what is going on.<br />
<br />
I have been getting clues now for several years and those clues are beginning to fall into a pattern. I will describe some of the clues in future posts. For now, I will just provide a general description just so you don't think that the clues are coming from voices in my head.<br />
<br />
Let's say that you are working on a problem in the back of your mind. Somebody says something that resonates greatly and seems to provide some insight into the problem you are puzzling over. This is a clue. It may have had nothing at all to do with your problem. But, because it provided needed insight, it is a clue. I will expand on this later.<br />
<br />
For right now I am going to cut to the chase and lay out the answer. We have gone from a period of normal times to a period of chaotic times. And understanding that helps us make sense of what is going on and what to do about it. If that peaks your interest, stay tuned, or keep reading as the case may be. I will explain all in upcoming or subsequent posts. <br />
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0