Be Positive

[Elec]

A superb post from Francis Pisani, live from Long Beach, California, February 8, 2009:

"I have doubts about my doubts - I start this post at Long Beach Airport on my way home after four days at the TED2009 (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference, the most fascinating of any I have ever seen. I was able to attend. (...) It invites me to question many ideas more or less firmly established in my head. An exercise always beneficial (...)

The people I saw during these four days work "so that it changes" without locking themselves in the old dialectic "personal change" or "collective change", without believing that the only solution is revolution, without seeing contradiction - for many of them - between working for a better world and enriching themselves.

They do. They spot a problem, imagine a solution, a technology, a method and get started. Whether it's starting a business or launching a movement. An example: BetterPlace, a company that is trying to generalize electric cars. The state of mind is different. Instead of seeing what makes an idea difficult to realize, they imagine what it takes to make it happen. It is all my skepticism (of which I am so proud) which takes full mouth (...)

A very concrete way of saying "Yes we can" without waiting for the message to come from above (...) It is all the erasure behind the distance and the abstraction which, this time, has died away. My reservations? Of course I have some (which shows that critical thinking dies hard, a good thing if it does not prevent action (...) that would not be enough to solve everything, but, a little optimism and confidence don't hurt anyone. "

http://pisani.blog.lemonde.fr/2009/02/0 ... es-doutes/

http://conferences.ted.com/TED2009/program/

[elephant]

In fact, it was a project management technique that I was taught during my NLP studies.

Certainly, there are people who moan when they arrive in a meeting and that they are told: you keep your objections for yourself, you must give only positive ideas that can move the project forward.
In other words, practice the technique of "YES ... AND ..."

Walt Disney had even perfected the technique and practiced it in 3 different places:
First meeting, place 1 where the deconometer was fully plugged in (true brain storming)
Second meeting in place 2 where we still set out to consider the problems of implementation (i.e. list them)
Third meeting at location 3 where solutions were sought (which eventually led to a new meeting at location 1)

I think he proved that it could work.

This technique is effective, it simply requires discipline:
- on the part of the facilitator who must constantly put the theme of the meeting back on track, sometimes with unshakable bad faith
- from the participants who must be aware that if they have been called to the meeting, it is to demand that they act

If you read my comments correctly on the post "The association, the men, etc ..." this is the underlying technique that I use.

[Christophe]

1) elephant: how many human resources are lost between the 3 meetings?

2) I am a little astonished by the title of the survey especially knowing your level Elec: does it mean that it is only possible to get rich by money therefore material goods? I know that a populist belief wants that an ecologist must make vows of poverty and live against society and progress: the barronets are the example par excellence. See the report from TF1: https://www.econologie.com/forums/injection- ... t7057.html

What about education? Culture? Self-fulfillment ... etc etc? These are not enrichments?

Yes money is important in our societies because it is a means of realization but it surely should not be a goal of life: working to increase your bank account is bullshit but I admit that it actually bandaging more than one ...

But the one who thinks that it is realistic to "change the world" without money, therefore without material means, is either a very great mind (1 in 1 billion?) Or a big naive ...

[elephant]

Tssss, Tssssss

1) I think you are confusing costs and investments! That said, at WD consider that the participants in the meeting are its collaborators, so they have everything to gain from the success of the project by investing in it.

2) personally, I perceived "enrich" in all its acceptances, which is why I voted yes.

PS: I modified 5 negations or double negations before posting this answer.

[Christophe]

Well the original text lacks clarity ...

Maybe a "bad" translation of an Anglicism?

[Elec]

(...) I was impressed by the program to teach classical music to the children of the Caracas slums of which I spoke on Friday.

By Aimee Mullins, this superb young woman who is both a model and an athlete who also has fun forcing us to rethink what it is to be the body or the identity.

By Lena Maris Klingvall who has no arms and only one leg which she uses for driving, doing calligraphy, swimming… among others.

By all these people who overcome their difficulties, personal or collective. A very concrete way of saying "Yes we can" without waiting for the message to come from above (...)

http://pisani.blog.lemonde.fr/2009/02/0 ... es-doutes/

[Ahmed]

Efficiency in project management is an excellent thing ... if the project is itself worthwhile.
In other words, the management mode is neutral, allowing any type of action, from the most respectable to the most condemnable.

As Christophe, I find that there are a lot of ambiguities in this text as well as in the survey, due to the mixture of genres.
Thus, enrichment as self-fulfillment cannot coexist with pecuniary enrichment from a methodological point of view.
If, in the poll, it is the first meaning that prevails, then the question does not have to be, because to say: "To work for a better world and to enrich oneself", is obvious.

On the other hand, it is generally contradictory to claim to reserve for its exclusive use considerable material goods and to be concerned for the common good. Beyond the specific cases, the reason is that the fact of seeking personal profit (in the strong sense obviously, not the concern of earning a living) opposes others, since this gain comes from the exploitation of a relationship of strength or inequality. In other words, the desire to appropriate as much of the goods in circulation leads to increasing inequality, which is incompatible with a better world.

@ Christophe:
Not really agree with you when you ask this alternative:

"But the one who thinks that it is realistic to "change the world" without money, therefore without material means, is either a very great mind (1 in 1 billion?) Or a big naive..."

With large means, it is certainly easy to change the world for the worse, it is what it is easy to note and there is no need to demonstrate it, but it is certainly not what you meant .

If it is a question of changing the world for the better, I believe that big financial means would be a big handicap, because, to have these big means it would be necessary to maintain close relations with the holders of the powers (political, economic…) . This dependence would inevitably lead to a misappropriation of action since it would be contrary to the interests of the dominant. The only thing that could, in this context, serve their interests, would be a sham humanitarian action to make a diversion (for example of charity rather than justice).
Thus, the end cannot be dissociated from the means used to achieve it.

[Elec]

There is in my opinion (to each his own ...) no contradiction between intellectual, spiritual enrichment and material enrichment.

It is not because one has no material goods that one is, in fact, intellectually and spiritually rich (which does not mean that not having material goods makes intellectual or spiritual fulfillment impossible) . Ethiopians who starve to death are not, in fact, intellectually and spiritually fulfilled people.

And it is not because one is enriched materially that any intellectual and spiritual blooming becomes impossible.

Material enrichment is not taboo.

France more communist than China

I had dinner tonight with Bo, a Chinese entrepreneur friend, obviously we talked about politics and compared France and China. For him, France has become a more "communist" country than China. Social system, difficulty in laying off workers, the power of the unions (they are anecdotal over there), the negative image of the company, everything is there. I answered him what burns your lips: yes, but when your country will have reached a level of development close to France, you too will settle in comfort and social protection. Bo completely agrees but adds "yes, but when we get there you French people will be down to the level where China is now with your socialism and your rejection of work".

I saved the best for you for last. Bo came to live in France for six months and to teach his children French. Why am I telling him? Oh, they will speak Chinese, the first language in the world in number, then English, a very important language, and finally French because it is "romantic", he will be able to flirt in French, a little "traditional" side that he likes, " cooler than useful, ”he says.

I forgot, to take care of the children full time, he recruited a ... French nanny unearthed in Aix en Provence "who is delighted, thanks to this job, she can come to Paris when she had none. not the means ".

If you think that the Chinese are still the ones who steal jobs from our workers, review your tablets, they are now recruiting French people to take care of their children. Household also? Probably, I did not ask him.

A consolation all the same before falling asleep, Bo and his wife test all the Michelin stars of the capital, they adore, and the museums, of course. "Too bad there is so much dog shit on the street."

http://loiclemeur.com/france/2006/09/la ... plus_.html

[Elec]

About the differences of national perception vis-à-vis the market economy, according to an american study:

"Has a study (2006) on the question"Is the market economy the best economic system?"71% of Americans answer YES, 74% for China, the highest rate in the world, higher than the United States, while the France answers yes to 36%. The majority of countries answered YES. "

Such a low score, it is shameful!
They prefer a planned economy those who answered no or who abstained?


(note that Argentina experienced a collapse of its financial system in 2001-2002, which undoubtedly explains the score of 42% ... which however remains higher than that of France!)


Bertrand Delanoe (PS):

"Liberalism is first of all a political philosophy of freedom (...) The market economy is not a debate, it is a fact (...) The economy is not of the right or The economy is (...) Let us stop conceiving the continuation of popular struggles as a replica of the revolutions of the past. (...) Today, it is over: after François Furet, we proclaim that “ the French Revolution is over. ”It remains the soul of our Republic, it made us what we are. But it is behind us.”

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2008/09/HALIMI/16270

[Capt_Maloche]

The problem with the market economy is that it is based on "always more", by which means growth, and that our world cannot bear such "pressure".

result: there are too many of us
Question: should demography be regulated?

We will soon be 9 billion according to INED, the slightest natural disaster associated with an energy shortage risks announcing the beginning of a very painful compulsory decrease, both materially and humanly.

On a global scale, what is the economy worth? nothing, it's our survival we're talking about.

Freedom, yes, but not if it sends us into the wall, if not, what is the use of our leaders? Ah yes, it's true, they are puppets ...