I was listening to an old Al DiMeola track the other day, called "Passion, Grace & Fire". If you haven't tried Al, you should.
Anyway, the title of the piece keeps running through my head, and it strikes me as an interesting and admirable combination of elements.
Passion is word which is used in confused ways - to describe physical encounters, deep commitment to a cause, or even misanthropy. Yet, in its best form, I think passion is a way to describe those beliefs which are held so firmly and centrally that they inform the very act of our being, and spill out into everything we do.
I know some very passionate people.In some cases they are people of deep faith, sometimes they are so caught up in their ideas that the rest of the world ceases to exist, and in others their passion is a reflection of the clarity of purpose with which they live their lives. Recently I saw a large group of people who were so passionate about a cause that they were prepared to give up 5 days of their normal lives to deliberate about a future direction in which to exercise that passion. The difference (and admirable bit) was that the cause had absolutely nothing to do with their welfare, tax rate or standard of living. And they were prepared to engage with the issue at hand simply through their passion for others.
I know a woman (a former work colleague) who had (hopefully she still has!) the capacity to view every task and project she was involved in through the lens of her passion for the organisation we work(ed) for. Her passion for the "cause" reflected in an excitement and energy which provided great heat and momentum for the people around her, and as such she was a great team builder.
She also had a great respect for the ones around her who maybe didn't quite share the passion or weren't as "full bottle" as she was. To me, this was the Grace element. Even in vigourous discussion (argument?) she maintained the position that the other person's view was as worthy as hers (at least thats how it looked). The grace with which she carried on her role was the quiet, steady steel rod in her back which made her position on things (almost invariably) the right one.
As for Fire, I think it relates closely to the passion. We even read about "firey, passionate" people.Unfortunately, most fires eventually go out. They run out of fuel; in the case of people, they run out of passion. What makes the fire sustainable is the combination of the grace and passion. My colleague used that combination to create the heat to inspire the team around her and sustain us all.
That woman has resigned from my workplace and moved on to a new role to stretch her talents. By the words of gratitude and praise which were spoken by various (usually quiet) team members at her farewell, its clear I'm not the only one who saw the passion, grace & fire I've described. I miss her.
But, what her leaving prompts in me, and I hope in others, is the desire to re-identify the things I am passionate about, to learn how to be gracious about them, and to generate heat to get things done.
How's your Passion, Grace & Fire?
(oh, & make sure you check out Al DiMeola!)
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
A bet each way?
I'm a firm believer that it's actually OK for people to choose not to believe that man made climate change is real - that is entirely their right in a free and democratic community. If they want to assert that the whole debate is bogged down in clumsy science or inconsistent political outburst from every side of the political spectrum, then they're completely entitled to that opinion.
(First digression point (warning, there may be a couple of these...)) - I struggle a bit with the right to express the opinion when its the State President of the Liberal National Party who wants to engineer the education department's curriculum from his desk (this from a party which is running the parlimentary arm of the LNP from outside the parliment with a "leader" who hasn't even been elected to parliament)).
I also struggle when the "forces of rightness" (talkback radio - you know who you are!) whilst all the while calling for transparency and accountability in public debate, forget to mention the organisations they're patrons of (Galileo Society- you know who you are!) when promoting travelling heriditary peers on an anti-climate change gab-fest (Lord Monkton - you know who you are!)
However, I'm also a big fan of consistency in the way people translate their positions into their actions. It gives us an insight into what they value and what they don't. It also helps to sort out the things they're prepared to put at risk and the things which they consider too precious to compromise on.
I reckon we all get asked to determine these priorities nearly every day of our lives. In response we ask ourselves how likely certain things are to happen. We look for evidence of actions or occurrences around us and try to work out how likely it is that its going to happen again.
Some people are super good at this stuff. "Risk Professionals" do it for a living, carefully categorising the "what-if this happens?" into unlikely/likely/certain/guaranteed piles. Then they ask "if it does happen, what are the consequences?" and the responses might range from minor to catastrophic. Their choices are usually based on scientific or other reasonable information. Like all information though, it will never be absolute. It is, for the purposes of analysing risk, enough to inform a choice for prioritisation.
How does this relate to climate change debates? I'm simply advocating that we insist on some consistency in how we treat life's little gambles, that's all. Some folks who are advocating that (man made) climate change is not real suggest that we simply do nothing to change our approach to energy production, use and consumption generally because, the science doesn't prove it or at least, there's a chance that the science is just wrong. Like I said before, thats fine for them if they want to approach it that way.
However, in the interest of consistency, I'd like to require that those same people cancel their income protection, car, health & house insurance because, in the absence of absolute proof (their test, not mine) there's a chance that they won't have an accident, get sick or have their house burned, flooded or burgled.
No? That's too risky? Well, ask yourself how many times you've claimed against those insurance policies, in the event that the very thing you're insured against has occurred. If you're like me, its probably pretty rare, but I'll wager (can't get away from the gambling language here can we?) that it doesn't stop us from being insured.
(Digression number 2 - I'd be pretty sure that the people denying climate change ALL have house insurance against the very risks I've mentioned)
Now, I'm sure it could be argued that there is evidence of those insured events having taken place, and I'm drawing too long a bow to compare say burglary to ongoing catastrophic climate change. But I think the majority of scientific opinion in favour of man made climate change falls into the same category, you know, on balance. So, we'll take a bet each way on those things, but not on climate change? Hmmm, chewy.
It also occurs to me that this conversation could take a theological turn - what if I'm misguided about the nature, existence and grace of God too? Should I really wait till I die to test what I can't prove? Now, thats a whole new mouthful of chewy stuff.
(First digression point (warning, there may be a couple of these...)) - I struggle a bit with the right to express the opinion when its the State President of the Liberal National Party who wants to engineer the education department's curriculum from his desk (this from a party which is running the parlimentary arm of the LNP from outside the parliment with a "leader" who hasn't even been elected to parliament)).
I also struggle when the "forces of rightness" (talkback radio - you know who you are!) whilst all the while calling for transparency and accountability in public debate, forget to mention the organisations they're patrons of (Galileo Society- you know who you are!) when promoting travelling heriditary peers on an anti-climate change gab-fest (Lord Monkton - you know who you are!)
However, I'm also a big fan of consistency in the way people translate their positions into their actions. It gives us an insight into what they value and what they don't. It also helps to sort out the things they're prepared to put at risk and the things which they consider too precious to compromise on.
I reckon we all get asked to determine these priorities nearly every day of our lives. In response we ask ourselves how likely certain things are to happen. We look for evidence of actions or occurrences around us and try to work out how likely it is that its going to happen again.
Some people are super good at this stuff. "Risk Professionals" do it for a living, carefully categorising the "what-if this happens?" into unlikely/likely/certain/guaranteed piles. Then they ask "if it does happen, what are the consequences?" and the responses might range from minor to catastrophic. Their choices are usually based on scientific or other reasonable information. Like all information though, it will never be absolute. It is, for the purposes of analysing risk, enough to inform a choice for prioritisation.
How does this relate to climate change debates? I'm simply advocating that we insist on some consistency in how we treat life's little gambles, that's all. Some folks who are advocating that (man made) climate change is not real suggest that we simply do nothing to change our approach to energy production, use and consumption generally because, the science doesn't prove it or at least, there's a chance that the science is just wrong. Like I said before, thats fine for them if they want to approach it that way.
However, in the interest of consistency, I'd like to require that those same people cancel their income protection, car, health & house insurance because, in the absence of absolute proof (their test, not mine) there's a chance that they won't have an accident, get sick or have their house burned, flooded or burgled.
No? That's too risky? Well, ask yourself how many times you've claimed against those insurance policies, in the event that the very thing you're insured against has occurred. If you're like me, its probably pretty rare, but I'll wager (can't get away from the gambling language here can we?) that it doesn't stop us from being insured.
(Digression number 2 - I'd be pretty sure that the people denying climate change ALL have house insurance against the very risks I've mentioned)
Now, I'm sure it could be argued that there is evidence of those insured events having taken place, and I'm drawing too long a bow to compare say burglary to ongoing catastrophic climate change. But I think the majority of scientific opinion in favour of man made climate change falls into the same category, you know, on balance. So, we'll take a bet each way on those things, but not on climate change? Hmmm, chewy.
It also occurs to me that this conversation could take a theological turn - what if I'm misguided about the nature, existence and grace of God too? Should I really wait till I die to test what I can't prove? Now, thats a whole new mouthful of chewy stuff.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Bubble bubble, toil & trouble?
I read a great article today about the initial public offer of another social networking site (you might call it Facebook for business types..) See here - http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/11714.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-0A3D9632-A21F9F5C
Now that we're nearly three years down the track from the GFC we had to have (cos everyone now tells us it was inevitable, really) it appears there's a whole bunch of new people willing to pay inflated amounts for shares in company which, lets face it, is not really big on "tangible" outcomes.
Yes, information is power.Yes, its good to be connected. And yes, networking in the business envirnoment may bring dividends in how we go about doing our business and who we do it with.
But really, $100 per share for a stock that so far, is little more than a respectable (& I'm not inferring for a moment that its anything less than completely respectable here) business introductions agency, which promises to "help you get the most from your professional network"?
With a decade of 50%+ pa earning increases required before it can pay a dividend, the only way investors in this will make a buck is on the hope that there are a bunch of later investors willing to buy their stock from them, not because it is a better stock, but because they think it's a better stock and lots and lots of other later investors agree with them.
Oh yes, we learned a whole lot from the GFC, didn't we kids?
Question: Anybody know any new dotcom stocks we can all get in on?
Now that we're nearly three years down the track from the GFC we had to have (cos everyone now tells us it was inevitable, really) it appears there's a whole bunch of new people willing to pay inflated amounts for shares in company which, lets face it, is not really big on "tangible" outcomes.
Yes, information is power.Yes, its good to be connected. And yes, networking in the business envirnoment may bring dividends in how we go about doing our business and who we do it with.
But really, $100 per share for a stock that so far, is little more than a respectable (& I'm not inferring for a moment that its anything less than completely respectable here) business introductions agency, which promises to "help you get the most from your professional network"?
With a decade of 50%+ pa earning increases required before it can pay a dividend, the only way investors in this will make a buck is on the hope that there are a bunch of later investors willing to buy their stock from them, not because it is a better stock, but because they think it's a better stock and lots and lots of other later investors agree with them.
Oh yes, we learned a whole lot from the GFC, didn't we kids?
Question: Anybody know any new dotcom stocks we can all get in on?
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
qanda, qanda, qanda...
In Michael Buble's version of the song (and Engelbert Humperdink's before him), "Quando, Quando, Quando" is the annoying repititious question that doesn't seem to have an answer:
".....Tell me when will you be mine
Tell me quando quando quando
We can share a love divine
Please don't make me wait again
When will you say yes to me
Tell me quando quando quando
You mean happiness to me
Oh my love please tell me when
I can't wait a moment more
Tell me quando quando quando
Say its me that you adore
And then darling tell me when ..." etc etc
What I just wanna know is - when will ABC's Q & A find a way to actually live up to the second half of its name, and finally get some answers from their celebrity panelists? All too often in recent weeks the show has started with promise, with the look of a well matched panel ( in the sense that they look capable of holding their own in a good debate) only to sink quickly into the type of ideological posing which passes for political exchange these days.
Don't get me wrong - I'll keep tuning in to see if its improving, but I have to confess that the turn off time is getting shorter. I gave up at about the 10 minute mark this week.
Come on Tony (or whoever is speaking into your earpiece) - can't you shorten the leash a little? If they can't answer the question in the first 20 seconds (or at least look like they're on the path towards it) it's time to call a halt and re-direct. Here's a hint - every time a politician says "Tony, let me just say this...." you should know we're in for a rant which probably won't answer the question.
And every time anyone speaks out of turn, their mic should be muted - or demerit points awarded - or something. Q & A started off so well as a model for informed and civilised conversations - lately it's little more than a forum for appalling manners and narrow interest groups.
".....Tell me when will you be mine
Tell me quando quando quando
We can share a love divine
Please don't make me wait again
When will you say yes to me
Tell me quando quando quando
You mean happiness to me
Oh my love please tell me when
I can't wait a moment more
Tell me quando quando quando
Say its me that you adore
And then darling tell me when ..." etc etc
What I just wanna know is - when will ABC's Q & A find a way to actually live up to the second half of its name, and finally get some answers from their celebrity panelists? All too often in recent weeks the show has started with promise, with the look of a well matched panel ( in the sense that they look capable of holding their own in a good debate) only to sink quickly into the type of ideological posing which passes for political exchange these days.
Don't get me wrong - I'll keep tuning in to see if its improving, but I have to confess that the turn off time is getting shorter. I gave up at about the 10 minute mark this week.
Come on Tony (or whoever is speaking into your earpiece) - can't you shorten the leash a little? If they can't answer the question in the first 20 seconds (or at least look like they're on the path towards it) it's time to call a halt and re-direct. Here's a hint - every time a politician says "Tony, let me just say this...." you should know we're in for a rant which probably won't answer the question.
And every time anyone speaks out of turn, their mic should be muted - or demerit points awarded - or something. Q & A started off so well as a model for informed and civilised conversations - lately it's little more than a forum for appalling manners and narrow interest groups.
Sunday, 29 May 2011
Carbon Cate
There's a bunch of people getting upset that Cate Blanchett (an actor who makes lots of money (apparently)) and Michael Caton (who is also an actor, but I'm betting doesn't make nearly as much money) are about to share their view on the proposed carbon tax in a series of advertisments. Of course, we haven't yet seen these ads, but we're led to understand that these two artists (I'm referring to their real jobs here) are broadly in favour of this new tax thingy.
From the clamouring news headlines, it appears that the main thing Cate & Michael have done wrong so far is (gasp!) develop an opinion and have the commitment to publicly state it. I am reasonably sure that's still OK 'round here, but from the press this is getting you could be forgiven for thinking that it's not. What is really confusing is that there's also a view that because these people are actors/performers/artists, then that automatically precludes them from having opinions of their own. Worse still that these two are successful actors ( & therefore wealthy as well, but I think that's another part of the debate).
Sorry, but you've lost me there - I thought one of the primary reasons for art was to challenge, question and reflect the society in which it exists. Truly great art is often possible of transcending society and time. So how does shutting our artists up help us? How does accusing them of having selfish agendas help develop the debate? (and didn't the Nazis try that approach?)
Seems we've lost track of what art & artists are really all about, and we've perhaps gotten it confused with entertainment. Yes, I'm sure there's a difference, and in a world which is obsessed with disposability, in which consumerism now extends to everything, it seems to me that the best thing about art is that it might occasionally have the capacity to NOT be disposable. (Hah! - even when Andy Warhol tried to make disposable art, he couldn't!) That it might have that transcendant quality. That it might make us better people.
It also beggars belief that because someone does a certain job for a living then they can't have a publicly held opinion on something else. Wow, that kinda blows that whole "democratic freedom of speech " concept out of the water, doesn't it?
From the clamouring news headlines, it appears that the main thing Cate & Michael have done wrong so far is (gasp!) develop an opinion and have the commitment to publicly state it. I am reasonably sure that's still OK 'round here, but from the press this is getting you could be forgiven for thinking that it's not. What is really confusing is that there's also a view that because these people are actors/performers/artists, then that automatically precludes them from having opinions of their own. Worse still that these two are successful actors ( & therefore wealthy as well, but I think that's another part of the debate).
Sorry, but you've lost me there - I thought one of the primary reasons for art was to challenge, question and reflect the society in which it exists. Truly great art is often possible of transcending society and time. So how does shutting our artists up help us? How does accusing them of having selfish agendas help develop the debate? (and didn't the Nazis try that approach?)
Seems we've lost track of what art & artists are really all about, and we've perhaps gotten it confused with entertainment. Yes, I'm sure there's a difference, and in a world which is obsessed with disposability, in which consumerism now extends to everything, it seems to me that the best thing about art is that it might occasionally have the capacity to NOT be disposable. (Hah! - even when Andy Warhol tried to make disposable art, he couldn't!) That it might have that transcendant quality. That it might make us better people.
It also beggars belief that because someone does a certain job for a living then they can't have a publicly held opinion on something else. Wow, that kinda blows that whole "democratic freedom of speech " concept out of the water, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)