Whither

It’s 9:55 PM and I've just returned from a walk. The temperature is about 70 degrees Fahrenheit and the sky is absolutely clear; very nice for July 17 in this location. All during the walk I had this internal conversation with unspecified others about the condition of the being. It seems that, just like an organization of people, the whole can be described by the sum of all the actions that it takes; by the prominent personalities (leaders); and by the results it achieves.

A long time ago, I listened with rapt attention as a Harvard professor spoke to an assembled group of Information Systems people attending a Unix seminar about how a country or organization could be characterized in a manner similar to an individual with respect to maturity level, professional level, culture, adopted rules of behavior, and probably some other things that I don’t remember. I am here stating that the reverse is likewise true and that it is even more so because an individual, a being, is made up of many personae and the expressed behavior of the being is just like that observed of an organization.

It is the challenge presented to the observing ‘I’ to determine for this being what that description might be. One approach is to look at the results achieved in various aspects of this lifetime and reach some sort of conclusion. Another is to reflect on the reactions of the various personae to situations that arise and conclude whatever. A third might be to ask an independent observer to give his/her opinion of the being; although it would be difficult to find one, or even a committee, that would know the being well enough to give a realistic and full appraisal. A fourth approach is to gather the opinions of personae that are predominant in each of the sources, i.e. intellectual, emotional, moving, social, sexual, and instinctive or to have the observing ‘I’ approach the evaluation from each of these points of view, being as purely in the source as possible. There may be/probably are more approaches that could be taken but I like the fourth the best because this one hasn’t been done before.

There are lists of accomplishments, there is the status of Planning Categories, Life Categories, Traits, and Endeavors; all of which are evaluated at least annually and more often, even weekly. There is the response to observed action/reactions which is largely emotional and, therefore, irrational. The independent observer is out of the question because there is none who is intimate enough and circumspect enough to give an accurate opinion. There have been surveys, questionnaires, evaluations, conclusions that have been given in the past all of which approached the being from a different point of view and gave differing results.

The one that generally gave the most agreeable/ believable results was the Bipolar analysis that included the opinions of others who knew this one from different arenas of activity. The results, however, forced the classification into one of four quadrants that then purported to predict behavior; very reasonable but false all the same.

A useful self-evaluation to be made would be from the point of view of the sources. This could be done by imagining each of the sources to have an ideal to which we (the personae) aspire; the actual results that are observed are influenced by different sources being part of the mix of any persona. The evaluation would be from the point of view of an imaginary persona consisting of unattainable purity of source. I am resolved to do this evaluation and it will take some time and effort to accomplish; IOW not this instant.

The walk surfaced lots of disparate opinions on the being, every time a critical remark was made about this failure or that, another positive point was raised to illustrate a success that was in the same vein as the failure recalled. A lot of emotional input was made about the loss at the pool table Wednesday night; and the golf game on Thursday. The critical remarks were rebuffed by the observation that the greatest influence on performance in these areas is the skill level that is/is not sufficient.

Now here we had an emotional/irrational response, i.e. you are a loser, reframed into an objective response, i.e. your skill is not at the desired level. It has to be noted that confidence rides with skill level in the passenger seat. As long as the emotional influence is unsatisfied with the skill level, confidence is lost or low, at best. The analogy of confidence being in the passenger seat is good because it is like same saying over and over, “we’re lost” while the driver is trying to figure out where in the heck we are.

Then there are the comparisons that evoke an equally irrational response. An example of which is (name withheld), a man who worked for me; I was his boss, we worked together to accomplish lots of good things in the shipyard. He is now a Senior VP making more than $10 million per year and I am sitting here in Louisville with just enough cash flow to keep me going sans souci. Both of us had aspirations—he realized his, I did or did not?

These are the comparisons that are most destructive to the psyche if allowed. There is no useful result to be obtained from indulging in this so I don’t. These comparisons evoke jealousy, cause discouragement, require one to dwell on the past, and on what might have been; very much like hearing about lottery winners and then dreaming about being one. In a big way, life is more predictable than the lottery because where we are is where the aggregate of the stronger personae want to be.

A more constructive evaluation is necessary with the desired result being a change of heart among the strong and influential personae, and recognizing that they will have it their way. No matter how logical, emotional, graceful, social, sexy, or assured we want to be, the results are what is in the cup after all is said and done, all the compromises made, all the activities completed; and this is what is /was desired.