Cherubs:
There's something happening to our language concerning the way we communicate in the world of work, here in America. The words are moving away from the humanity, there's a distancing and an objectification that's happening. It bothers me immensely. I'll attempt to use a little humor here, but consider the following phrases:
"Think outside the box" -- People who still say this are decidedly inside the box. It's become a tired phrase that attempts to conjure creativity, but instead succeeds only in conjuring eye rolling on the part of the listener, if indeed, the listener is still listening. How about "think creatively about" or "think beyond the obvious" what's wrong with that?
"It is what it is". -- I do not know who coined this phrase but if ever a more empty, defeatist, negative phrase existed I don't know what it is. If the good side of this is to invoke pragmatism, there must be a better way to do it. How about "let us accept those things which can't be changed and work together to improve those which can"? Oops, maybe that's too many words?
"Take this offline" -- This is an attempt to pretend that you don't want to bother people in the larger meeting which the details of a particular matter. But what it really means is that you actually want private time with the person disagreeing with you in order to brow beat them into submission with impunity and without witnesses. And by the way, when we're sitting in a meeting are we "on line"? I know some of us are pounding away on our blackberries and not paying any attention to the meeting in the first place, and I know that some of us are so unfortunate as to have had to call into the meeting which allows those present in the meeting room to snicker at us without being detected, but I was not aware that we were "on line". So why are we taking things "off line"? Things in English are really weird in corporate America.
"Circle back with" -- OK this is a weird one. What this means is that you can't answer a question, so you need to speak with the person who has the answer. Why you can't just "speak" with them as opposed to "circling back" with them is beyond me. It kind of reminds me of the old cowboys and Indian games, where the cowboys "circle the wagons" (which by the way, never really happened but it made for a nice movie shot).
"Reach out and touch" -- Okay I think the political types use this one more than the corporate types, but I've heard it both places. What it means is to contact somebody, talk to somebody, speak with somebody, telephone somebody, or otherwise attempt to communicate. There was an old television ad I believe that had a jingle "reach out, reach out and touch someone". Perhaps that old ad is what spawned this phrase, but I actually would posit a different theory. My theory is that "reach out and touch" gives the feeling of distance and "speak with" gives the feeling of closeness. When faced with the choice of distance or nearness, most corporate speakers will choose distance. Distance is safer. Also, I think "reach out and touch" implies that you're doing something more than you're doing. Corporate speakers always want you to think that they're working harder than they really are.
"We" -- "We" almost always equals "I" or even more often "you". People choose to say "we" because they think it sounds more egalitarian than "I/you", and protects them from being exposed as a bully, which is what they're really usually doing, bullying you into doing it their way. Consider the following sentence: "I'm not sure we should be taking that approach". What this means is "you stupid idiot, just do it my way and get it right next time, ya hear?" Enough said.
"Resources" -- "Resources" = "money". There are no exceptions to that equation. It's just that we don't say the bad, bad money word. The money word is bad, very, very bad. Even if "resources" = "people", "people" cost money. And the money word is bad, very, very bad. Don't say that word, okay?
"Throw him/her/them under the bus" -- This frighteningly violent phrase has to do with pointing out that somebody on one's team, or elsewhere in the company, might be responsible for doing something less than helpful. "I don't want to throw anybody under the bus but didn't that gaff in the newsletter originate with the editing team?" It can also mean that you intend to assign somebody a painful, difficult and thoroughly awful project and then you name the name of the person to whom this dreadful and thoroughly awful project will be assigned. Then you end with some iteration of the bus phrase. "Not to throw Julie under the bus, but she'd be very good at sorting out all the widgets into the special widget drawers and then reporting the contents of each drawer in 20 different memos to senior management, twice weekly." In other words, when you state you don't want to throw somebody under the bus, that's exactly what you end up doing. Look both ways before crossing anywhere in corporate America folks.
"The bottom line is" -- See above under "Resources".
"Bandwidth" -- This is an adoption of a computer measurement of memory or disk space which is being applied to people's "time". "Time" is almost as bad "money" in the corporate world. Don't say these words okay? Again, I'm seeing a depersonalization of people -- they don't have "time" they have bandwidth, they are not people, they are computers. They are not people who have time and who cost money. They are people who have/don't have bandwidth and are worth/not worth resources. Yikes!
"Do the math" -- You do the math! Okay, I'll do the math! Doing the math refers to figuring something out. I actually don't mind this phrase quite so much if it is not used to brow beat somebody. "Everybody knows that the editing team (not to throw them under the bus) has made at least 25 errors this year. I mean, you do the math!" There is one most dreadful iteration of this and that is, dare I say it, the conversion of the word "math" from a noun to a verb. Yes, it's the now commonplace assumption that we don't have enough verbs in English and so therefore, we have to use perfectly good nouns and convert them to verbs. People "gift" each other now, so I guess, the verb "to give" is just not okay anymore. But when people "math" things out, I have to put my foot down all. I really can't stomach that.
And I guess that brings me to the end of this blog entry with a plea for a return to humanity in the workplace. Let's close up the distance and communicate with one another in such a way that acknowledges our human worth and makes us less like commodities and more like people. I dare say we'll get more done, make more "money" and have more "time" to ourselves. You do the math!
All my love, Margaret
Monday, May 4, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
I understand completely that I am too introspective
Cherubs:
I have been cautioned about my introspectiveness. I have been counseled (and I think carefully, and with forethought and love) that I must join the world, that I am alone too much in my thoughts.
I think perhaps that all those who council me are quite correct. One cannot sit and contemplate one's navel. Yes, indeedy, I agree.
But dearest cherubs, I ask you this..... who is thinking? Who is thinking? And I ask one more time, who is thinking?
Writers serve a purpose in the world. We sit around during train rides to Boston and we think of stuff. Sometimes, we look around us and make an observance that might, one hopes, be useful to somebody else. Notice that I don't say "everybody" I simply say "somebody". I really don't care two bits if I ever publish a book but I sure do care two bits if I don't influence or communicate with other human beings.
I have several good friends who have encouraged me to write a book. What in the sweet name of heaven would I write about I wonder? My family is indeed, colorful. If I wrote about them, I might risk hurting somebody whom I never would have intended to hurt.
I could write about the things that bother me, confuse me, piss me off, make me happy.... make me happy.... I have to think about the "make me happy thing".
I have declared often to those whom I love and to those perhaps who simply endure me that "happiness is an unproductive state". Do you know when I am completely happy? It's when I am doing absolutely nothing. I am completely happy, in a bubble bath, in a tub that I don't have to clean, sipping a glass of wine that I didn't have to buy, looking at towels on towel warmers that somebody else is paying the electricity bill for, knowing that I will soon wrap myself in those towels.
Happiness is not productive. Agnst is productive. Worry and gnashing of teeth is productive (sometimes). Carefulness, and planning and consideration all are productive...but happiness? Well, to me it really is not conducive to getting anything done.
I believe that our founding fathers guranteed us only the "pursuit of happiness". The pursuit, is all that is guaranteed. The happiness is all a matter of perception.
I pursue my bubble bath. But I know that what I contribute is of value. But nobody is going to say to me "hooray for you Margaret". So who will say that to me, other than myself -- nobody I think.
So back to introspectiviness. I am indeed, introspective, and perhaps I wonder why that is. It is, I think, because I give myself the credit and rely on nobody else to do so. Even if somebody says, nope, you didn't get there or you didn't do what I wanted you to do, I still know that I am a person of worth. I guess I credit a person who sat across from me. in a leather chair-- a woman, my therapist, who saved my life.
I no longer see her on a regular basis, but she saved my life nonetheless, and my gratitude to her knows no bounds.
Today, I went to a gym to begin the process of putting back together my body to match my psyche. And my trainer was another kind of therapist. I could tell that he had compassion and I could tell that he had a sense of humor. I did only 9 pushups in one minute. But I knew that if I made a commitement, those 9 pushups would grow. I remember the feeling of muscles working from another life. Thank you to all my dance teachers for that.
Cherubs, the pursuit of happiness, is a very great pursuit. It is my humble opinion that one should attempt it as best one can, even if it results in lack of production. And please all of you, forgive my introspection because what can one do? I am thinking. I am thinking. I am thinking.
Warmly, and with love, Margaret
I have been cautioned about my introspectiveness. I have been counseled (and I think carefully, and with forethought and love) that I must join the world, that I am alone too much in my thoughts.
I think perhaps that all those who council me are quite correct. One cannot sit and contemplate one's navel. Yes, indeedy, I agree.
But dearest cherubs, I ask you this..... who is thinking? Who is thinking? And I ask one more time, who is thinking?
Writers serve a purpose in the world. We sit around during train rides to Boston and we think of stuff. Sometimes, we look around us and make an observance that might, one hopes, be useful to somebody else. Notice that I don't say "everybody" I simply say "somebody". I really don't care two bits if I ever publish a book but I sure do care two bits if I don't influence or communicate with other human beings.
I have several good friends who have encouraged me to write a book. What in the sweet name of heaven would I write about I wonder? My family is indeed, colorful. If I wrote about them, I might risk hurting somebody whom I never would have intended to hurt.
I could write about the things that bother me, confuse me, piss me off, make me happy.... make me happy.... I have to think about the "make me happy thing".
I have declared often to those whom I love and to those perhaps who simply endure me that "happiness is an unproductive state". Do you know when I am completely happy? It's when I am doing absolutely nothing. I am completely happy, in a bubble bath, in a tub that I don't have to clean, sipping a glass of wine that I didn't have to buy, looking at towels on towel warmers that somebody else is paying the electricity bill for, knowing that I will soon wrap myself in those towels.
Happiness is not productive. Agnst is productive. Worry and gnashing of teeth is productive (sometimes). Carefulness, and planning and consideration all are productive...but happiness? Well, to me it really is not conducive to getting anything done.
I believe that our founding fathers guranteed us only the "pursuit of happiness". The pursuit, is all that is guaranteed. The happiness is all a matter of perception.
I pursue my bubble bath. But I know that what I contribute is of value. But nobody is going to say to me "hooray for you Margaret". So who will say that to me, other than myself -- nobody I think.
So back to introspectiviness. I am indeed, introspective, and perhaps I wonder why that is. It is, I think, because I give myself the credit and rely on nobody else to do so. Even if somebody says, nope, you didn't get there or you didn't do what I wanted you to do, I still know that I am a person of worth. I guess I credit a person who sat across from me. in a leather chair-- a woman, my therapist, who saved my life.
I no longer see her on a regular basis, but she saved my life nonetheless, and my gratitude to her knows no bounds.
Today, I went to a gym to begin the process of putting back together my body to match my psyche. And my trainer was another kind of therapist. I could tell that he had compassion and I could tell that he had a sense of humor. I did only 9 pushups in one minute. But I knew that if I made a commitement, those 9 pushups would grow. I remember the feeling of muscles working from another life. Thank you to all my dance teachers for that.
Cherubs, the pursuit of happiness, is a very great pursuit. It is my humble opinion that one should attempt it as best one can, even if it results in lack of production. And please all of you, forgive my introspection because what can one do? I am thinking. I am thinking. I am thinking.
Warmly, and with love, Margaret
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The obligatory Easter Blog!
Sweet cherubs:
Because of my group membership in the popular social network LinkedIn, I have been in a dialogue with a minister. Yes, this is me, Margaret, the agnostic, in a dialogue with a minister.
He posed a question to the Learning, Education and Training Professionals group on LinkedIn. The question is as follows: Do you know of an objection to Christianity?
Well, as you might imagine, there were several posts indignantly questioning the relevancy of such a question posted in this particular group. But I decided to reply to him privately. I should tell you that he was actually seeking a way to communicate across many other religions and answer questions and talk about Christianity. Well, I thought that was a noble effort, so I replied. I suggested to him that one cannot debate faith, for the very reason that faith is based on an acceptance that cannot be proved or beaten into another person. Faith just is, you either have it, or you don't. What I did suggest to him is that what I call "churchianity" has caused much ill in the world. (More about that later.) Across a few e-mails, I suggested to him that if one were to have a discussion, one must discuss the similarities across all three Abrahamic religions. It's basically the same story, with different names, in slightly different locations, over approximately 3,000 years.
I also suggested to him that if one were to step back one step further to include the eastern religions, there are still points of similarity. "Everybody be loving and helpful to others; everybody help those less fortunate than yourselves." Goodness gracious, what's wrong with that? It's quite difficult to argue with that, don't you agree?
Back to the evil and disparaging "churchianity". Herein lies the problem. Churches were founded by men (and sometimes women, but mostly men). Once you have a "church" you have a problem. You have a problem because then, somebody starts pointing to a book and saying "it says here in this book that this and such and stuff is true and if you don't believe that, then you are wrong, and not just wrong, you can't be a part of our community".
Well, that is where organized religion and I part company. I explained to the good minister that God and I have a good relationship. I explained that she smiles at me every morning when I look in the mirror (I expect that statement may have given him some pause). But I also explained that once you say "it says here in this book" that I believe one is automatially wrong. The discussion of right and wrong must be avoided. There is no right and there is no wrong. There just is dogma and stories and the stuff of humans. It's humans that made religion. God had nothing to do with it.
Finally, I suggested to our friend the minister, that in order to break out of the evils of "churchianity" he consider respect. Okay the Christians believe this, the Jews believe this, the Muslims believe this and the Buddhists, believe this. So what? Everybody's beliefs are okay, and everybody's non-beliefs are okay. You can't convince anybody, but you can share ideas. You can share ideas as long as you do not feel the need to "convince" anybody. Faith and convincing are an anathma to one another. My ex-mother in law is a devout Christian. I learned to get along with her when I stopped beating her with my intellectual approach. As I have said before, faith cannot be proved nor can it be repudiated. When we would talk, I simply smile and say, "your faith must be a great comfort to you". I was not patronizing her, but I was trying to say in a sense, "I"m okay and you're okay". I won't get on the band wagon, but neither will I imply that you're on the wrong band wagon. I just, simply, have no idea.
To me, it's okay not to know. Sometimes, I think, we were not meant to actually "know". Jeepers creepers, there's a lot of quotation marks in this post!
Thanks as always for listening dearest cherubs.
Blessed Be and Happy Easter, Passover, ummm not sure what the Muslims and Buddhists do this time of year.
Margaret
Because of my group membership in the popular social network LinkedIn, I have been in a dialogue with a minister. Yes, this is me, Margaret, the agnostic, in a dialogue with a minister.
He posed a question to the Learning, Education and Training Professionals group on LinkedIn. The question is as follows: Do you know of an objection to Christianity?
Well, as you might imagine, there were several posts indignantly questioning the relevancy of such a question posted in this particular group. But I decided to reply to him privately. I should tell you that he was actually seeking a way to communicate across many other religions and answer questions and talk about Christianity. Well, I thought that was a noble effort, so I replied. I suggested to him that one cannot debate faith, for the very reason that faith is based on an acceptance that cannot be proved or beaten into another person. Faith just is, you either have it, or you don't. What I did suggest to him is that what I call "churchianity" has caused much ill in the world. (More about that later.) Across a few e-mails, I suggested to him that if one were to have a discussion, one must discuss the similarities across all three Abrahamic religions. It's basically the same story, with different names, in slightly different locations, over approximately 3,000 years.
I also suggested to him that if one were to step back one step further to include the eastern religions, there are still points of similarity. "Everybody be loving and helpful to others; everybody help those less fortunate than yourselves." Goodness gracious, what's wrong with that? It's quite difficult to argue with that, don't you agree?
Back to the evil and disparaging "churchianity". Herein lies the problem. Churches were founded by men (and sometimes women, but mostly men). Once you have a "church" you have a problem. You have a problem because then, somebody starts pointing to a book and saying "it says here in this book that this and such and stuff is true and if you don't believe that, then you are wrong, and not just wrong, you can't be a part of our community".
Well, that is where organized religion and I part company. I explained to the good minister that God and I have a good relationship. I explained that she smiles at me every morning when I look in the mirror (I expect that statement may have given him some pause). But I also explained that once you say "it says here in this book" that I believe one is automatially wrong. The discussion of right and wrong must be avoided. There is no right and there is no wrong. There just is dogma and stories and the stuff of humans. It's humans that made religion. God had nothing to do with it.
Finally, I suggested to our friend the minister, that in order to break out of the evils of "churchianity" he consider respect. Okay the Christians believe this, the Jews believe this, the Muslims believe this and the Buddhists, believe this. So what? Everybody's beliefs are okay, and everybody's non-beliefs are okay. You can't convince anybody, but you can share ideas. You can share ideas as long as you do not feel the need to "convince" anybody. Faith and convincing are an anathma to one another. My ex-mother in law is a devout Christian. I learned to get along with her when I stopped beating her with my intellectual approach. As I have said before, faith cannot be proved nor can it be repudiated. When we would talk, I simply smile and say, "your faith must be a great comfort to you". I was not patronizing her, but I was trying to say in a sense, "I"m okay and you're okay". I won't get on the band wagon, but neither will I imply that you're on the wrong band wagon. I just, simply, have no idea.
To me, it's okay not to know. Sometimes, I think, we were not meant to actually "know". Jeepers creepers, there's a lot of quotation marks in this post!
Thanks as always for listening dearest cherubs.
Blessed Be and Happy Easter, Passover, ummm not sure what the Muslims and Buddhists do this time of year.
Margaret
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sunday afternoon --a random post
Blessed cherubs:
It's raining outside and I'm glad, because we needed the rain. However, the rain causes me to turn inward, as I am wont to do these days, to consider several things.
I am considering whether I am becoming angrier than in days past. I am considering whether I think corporate America can ever be an organization that I want to be part of. I am considering whether or not to "retreat" to academia.
I believe I mentioned before that I went to hear Noam Chomsky recently. This man stirred a nerve that I had buried deeply inside me since I went to Seabrook back in the 1970s. Even back then, I chickened out, I chose to come back to UMass, take my exams and graduate. Several members of that protest begged me to stay. They accused me of being a "fair weather" protester. Perhaps I was a fair weather protester. But I was also a person interested in becoming a person. Hah! And so why must there always be a choice?
I have buried myself as a wife, buried myself as a mother, and buried myself as a corporate laborer. Recently, I have slowly climbed out of that pit that I was buried in. And now, I wonder if there is any place for an observing, progressive liberal intellectual like me.
The president that I wanted, is in the White House. The Congress that I elected is in the Capital. Why, then, am I still so worried?
I am worried because I am concerned that the thinking that must be done, is not being done. Now don't get me wrong. President Obama is doing the thinking I have no worries about that. Congress, well Congress has always been out of control, and the House will be mitigated by the Senate, as the plan has always been. It's important that we understand that our founders had that right. The House will put forward an inappropriate bill to tax the AIG bonuses, and the bill will be defeated in the Senate. This is as it should be.
But the thinking that I'm talking about is more of a self examination. Will Americans examine their way of life and find it wanting, and implement the change?
Will Americans embrace the good of all, over the good of the few?
I think not.
I think they will patiently wait until they can get the credit they think they deserve, and then, they will continue to borrow indiscriminently, and not save anything.
Sigh.
Now I'm not preaching here, because I struggle with all these things. I love my cell phone. I love the fact that I can reach my daughter at anytime to know that she is ok. I have not canceled cable TV, I like the On Demand feature and use it more than viewing network television. I don't like owning a home, but appreciate that when I was married, we could borrow against it to make necessary repairs. But I also confess to you that I can't wait until we can sell it because it feels like an albatross around my neck.
But I have also thought about doing some things I might not have thought about doing, before this melt down. I have thought about soliciting for a roommate. I have thought about sending MORE money not less but MORE money to my 401(k). I have canceled some little luxuries. I have joined a health club, but closed down a coffee club membership and my Zoots membership which I frankly, really adored. I am not sure if I am part of the problem. But this whole thing had caused me to think about my priorities and I guess frankly, that's a good thing.
Is there a place for me as an observant, progressive liberal? I certainly hope that there is. There's certainly more opportunities that there were before. But I find my self arguing more than ever with my conservative friends. They are angry. Ok now, it's our turn. Perhaps soon, you can say that we blew it. But not yet, my friends, not yet. President Obama has not yet had enough time to blow it. Let's just try to give him a chance to fix this mess.
So I say to my conservative friends at this time, the soap box is NOT yours. Try as best you can to adapt to this change, and try to have some respect for the other point of view. After all, the "other" point of view is now in power. You're done for now. Get over it, and try to listen more than talk. That's the wisdom of the age. Listen.
Blessed Be, sweet cherubs.
It's raining outside and I'm glad, because we needed the rain. However, the rain causes me to turn inward, as I am wont to do these days, to consider several things.
I am considering whether I am becoming angrier than in days past. I am considering whether I think corporate America can ever be an organization that I want to be part of. I am considering whether or not to "retreat" to academia.
I believe I mentioned before that I went to hear Noam Chomsky recently. This man stirred a nerve that I had buried deeply inside me since I went to Seabrook back in the 1970s. Even back then, I chickened out, I chose to come back to UMass, take my exams and graduate. Several members of that protest begged me to stay. They accused me of being a "fair weather" protester. Perhaps I was a fair weather protester. But I was also a person interested in becoming a person. Hah! And so why must there always be a choice?
I have buried myself as a wife, buried myself as a mother, and buried myself as a corporate laborer. Recently, I have slowly climbed out of that pit that I was buried in. And now, I wonder if there is any place for an observing, progressive liberal intellectual like me.
The president that I wanted, is in the White House. The Congress that I elected is in the Capital. Why, then, am I still so worried?
I am worried because I am concerned that the thinking that must be done, is not being done. Now don't get me wrong. President Obama is doing the thinking I have no worries about that. Congress, well Congress has always been out of control, and the House will be mitigated by the Senate, as the plan has always been. It's important that we understand that our founders had that right. The House will put forward an inappropriate bill to tax the AIG bonuses, and the bill will be defeated in the Senate. This is as it should be.
But the thinking that I'm talking about is more of a self examination. Will Americans examine their way of life and find it wanting, and implement the change?
Will Americans embrace the good of all, over the good of the few?
I think not.
I think they will patiently wait until they can get the credit they think they deserve, and then, they will continue to borrow indiscriminently, and not save anything.
Sigh.
Now I'm not preaching here, because I struggle with all these things. I love my cell phone. I love the fact that I can reach my daughter at anytime to know that she is ok. I have not canceled cable TV, I like the On Demand feature and use it more than viewing network television. I don't like owning a home, but appreciate that when I was married, we could borrow against it to make necessary repairs. But I also confess to you that I can't wait until we can sell it because it feels like an albatross around my neck.
But I have also thought about doing some things I might not have thought about doing, before this melt down. I have thought about soliciting for a roommate. I have thought about sending MORE money not less but MORE money to my 401(k). I have canceled some little luxuries. I have joined a health club, but closed down a coffee club membership and my Zoots membership which I frankly, really adored. I am not sure if I am part of the problem. But this whole thing had caused me to think about my priorities and I guess frankly, that's a good thing.
Is there a place for me as an observant, progressive liberal? I certainly hope that there is. There's certainly more opportunities that there were before. But I find my self arguing more than ever with my conservative friends. They are angry. Ok now, it's our turn. Perhaps soon, you can say that we blew it. But not yet, my friends, not yet. President Obama has not yet had enough time to blow it. Let's just try to give him a chance to fix this mess.
So I say to my conservative friends at this time, the soap box is NOT yours. Try as best you can to adapt to this change, and try to have some respect for the other point of view. After all, the "other" point of view is now in power. You're done for now. Get over it, and try to listen more than talk. That's the wisdom of the age. Listen.
Blessed Be, sweet cherubs.
Friday, March 20, 2009
A couple of days off
Cherubs:
You know, it's a really sad thing when you have to have oral surgery. But what's really much more sad, is that you're grateful to have a good excuse to take a couple of days off.
I'm sitting in my home office, happily writing to you. I have minimal pain thank goodness, and if I have more pain, I have drugs. But I'm blissful, why? I'm blissful because I was able to take two days off because I was having this procedure. What is wrong with this picture? Why in my heart of hearts, could I not have said to my boss, I need to take a couple of days off, for my own sanity. Why didn't I just do that?
Well it's complicated I think.
In this economy, one wants to feel that one is indispensible and needed and that one's absence will be missed. I'm not sure that I'm indispensible (even though I'm the only trainer for a global company), and frankly, all that I think will be missed is my sometimes annoying message to my colleagues -- that my company must become a learning organization and that learning and continuous improvement is important. Yikes, I wish I were not the only one saying that but in fact, I think that is true.
The other thing that plagues me is the good old Protestant work ethic. You work, and if you can walk, you work, and if you breath in and out, you work. It's a terrible plague. The Europeans are much better at the work life balance. The saying goes that American's live to work and that Europeans work to live. I like the European approach better, and being of Italian descent, feel drawn to that approach. But frankly, I was born here, and hard work has been beaten into me since I was a tot. My Italian cousins shake their heads at me. "You're in Italy for one week", my cousin Bruno exclaimed. One week! He was amazed. I explained that one week was the only vacation time I could get. Once in my life, I took two weeks vacation, but I couldn't this time. He simply was amazed.
There's one more, even more disturbing reason why I feel that I can't just take a day off. My existence. I worry about my existence. I worry that if I don't constantly prove every day of my life that I am of value, that I will simply cease to exist. Now that's really messed up. (I would use the F word, but this a public blog.) But I feel compelled to admit it to you all, because I think that I am not the only one who feels that way.
So I sit here with my slight discomfort in my lower right jaw and I feel grateful for a failed root canal. I feel grateful because I could lie in bed this morning and watch Sense and Sensibility or Henry V or any of my favorite films and not feel guilty. Heavens, this is just not good.
I think sometimes that this is why people play the lottery. Not because of greed, or worries, or anger, or even the hope of riches. But because they might be able at some point to be self actualized human beings and make their own decisions based on their own feelings. Wow, what a luxury that might be.
I bid you peace dearest cherubs with the hope that you might actually take some time for yourselves without guilt or other forms of hand chafing.
Warmly, Margaret
You know, it's a really sad thing when you have to have oral surgery. But what's really much more sad, is that you're grateful to have a good excuse to take a couple of days off.
I'm sitting in my home office, happily writing to you. I have minimal pain thank goodness, and if I have more pain, I have drugs. But I'm blissful, why? I'm blissful because I was able to take two days off because I was having this procedure. What is wrong with this picture? Why in my heart of hearts, could I not have said to my boss, I need to take a couple of days off, for my own sanity. Why didn't I just do that?
Well it's complicated I think.
In this economy, one wants to feel that one is indispensible and needed and that one's absence will be missed. I'm not sure that I'm indispensible (even though I'm the only trainer for a global company), and frankly, all that I think will be missed is my sometimes annoying message to my colleagues -- that my company must become a learning organization and that learning and continuous improvement is important. Yikes, I wish I were not the only one saying that but in fact, I think that is true.
The other thing that plagues me is the good old Protestant work ethic. You work, and if you can walk, you work, and if you breath in and out, you work. It's a terrible plague. The Europeans are much better at the work life balance. The saying goes that American's live to work and that Europeans work to live. I like the European approach better, and being of Italian descent, feel drawn to that approach. But frankly, I was born here, and hard work has been beaten into me since I was a tot. My Italian cousins shake their heads at me. "You're in Italy for one week", my cousin Bruno exclaimed. One week! He was amazed. I explained that one week was the only vacation time I could get. Once in my life, I took two weeks vacation, but I couldn't this time. He simply was amazed.
There's one more, even more disturbing reason why I feel that I can't just take a day off. My existence. I worry about my existence. I worry that if I don't constantly prove every day of my life that I am of value, that I will simply cease to exist. Now that's really messed up. (I would use the F word, but this a public blog.) But I feel compelled to admit it to you all, because I think that I am not the only one who feels that way.
So I sit here with my slight discomfort in my lower right jaw and I feel grateful for a failed root canal. I feel grateful because I could lie in bed this morning and watch Sense and Sensibility or Henry V or any of my favorite films and not feel guilty. Heavens, this is just not good.
I think sometimes that this is why people play the lottery. Not because of greed, or worries, or anger, or even the hope of riches. But because they might be able at some point to be self actualized human beings and make their own decisions based on their own feelings. Wow, what a luxury that might be.
I bid you peace dearest cherubs with the hope that you might actually take some time for yourselves without guilt or other forms of hand chafing.
Warmly, Margaret
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Is romance real?
Dearest cherubs:
You must forgive me, because when I feel called to write upon such subjects, it's usually after a couple of glasses of wine on a Sunday evening. :-)
But now that I am single, after a long period of being married, I find myself contemplating this sociological phenomenon called romance.
What the heck is it, I wonder?
It may perhaps only belong to young people. Or, it may be that it only belongs to those who believe in it. I'm just not sure, and I don't feel qualified to judge. I'm not sure that I've ever been in love.
I think I've been in limerence (please forgive the spelling, I can't find a dictionary that has this word in it, yet I know it's a real word). Limerence is the scientific term for the feeling that we experience sometimes when we meet somebody and we find we can't really think or behave rationally or at least with a semblance of reasonable behavior. We stammer, we pull at our hair and look down or up, and bat our eyelashes. This is limerence. Friends, I guess I find that limerence at this point in my life is highly undesireable. I confess to you that I have no desire to experience limerence ever, ever again.
I seem to desire friendship. Friendship to me seems ultimately to be desired. It is so easy to love a friend. You get together, you share views, experiences, worries, triumphs, failures and concerns. All of this is done without judgement, without rancor, without demands. You just are, you just can be, you are of support to one another without having any hidden agendas.
Is friendship enough?
Ah now this is the ultimate question. I do not know if friendship is enough. I am hoping that it is, but I have a nagging suspicion that it is not. I do not know what causes this nagging feeling. I wonder if our society poses this necessity to conform. I am at my core, a nonconformist. But I do not reject society's mores out of habit. I attempt to examine these things. I attempt to ask questions and to seek answers.
The other day I went to hear one of society's great dissidents, Noam Chomsky. He was brilliant, as I knew he would be. But he also struck me as quite vulnerable (he is now 80 years old), quite charming and deeply connected to the human condition. Is that what one must be to be a truly great human being? Perhaps, perhaps that is true. I wonder if Noam Chomsky was ever in love?
My dears sing out okay? I write only to pose questions, not to demand answers.
Warmly and with love, Margaret
You must forgive me, because when I feel called to write upon such subjects, it's usually after a couple of glasses of wine on a Sunday evening. :-)
But now that I am single, after a long period of being married, I find myself contemplating this sociological phenomenon called romance.
What the heck is it, I wonder?
It may perhaps only belong to young people. Or, it may be that it only belongs to those who believe in it. I'm just not sure, and I don't feel qualified to judge. I'm not sure that I've ever been in love.
I think I've been in limerence (please forgive the spelling, I can't find a dictionary that has this word in it, yet I know it's a real word). Limerence is the scientific term for the feeling that we experience sometimes when we meet somebody and we find we can't really think or behave rationally or at least with a semblance of reasonable behavior. We stammer, we pull at our hair and look down or up, and bat our eyelashes. This is limerence. Friends, I guess I find that limerence at this point in my life is highly undesireable. I confess to you that I have no desire to experience limerence ever, ever again.
I seem to desire friendship. Friendship to me seems ultimately to be desired. It is so easy to love a friend. You get together, you share views, experiences, worries, triumphs, failures and concerns. All of this is done without judgement, without rancor, without demands. You just are, you just can be, you are of support to one another without having any hidden agendas.
Is friendship enough?
Ah now this is the ultimate question. I do not know if friendship is enough. I am hoping that it is, but I have a nagging suspicion that it is not. I do not know what causes this nagging feeling. I wonder if our society poses this necessity to conform. I am at my core, a nonconformist. But I do not reject society's mores out of habit. I attempt to examine these things. I attempt to ask questions and to seek answers.
The other day I went to hear one of society's great dissidents, Noam Chomsky. He was brilliant, as I knew he would be. But he also struck me as quite vulnerable (he is now 80 years old), quite charming and deeply connected to the human condition. Is that what one must be to be a truly great human being? Perhaps, perhaps that is true. I wonder if Noam Chomsky was ever in love?
My dears sing out okay? I write only to pose questions, not to demand answers.
Warmly and with love, Margaret
Monday, March 2, 2009
A list in celebration of civility
Dearest cherubs:
Those familiar with my writings, will know that occasionally I post a list. Here's my first "blog" list.
I am from the age of civility. And so for me, to see a president who is civil on the evening news, no matter how huge the severity of the thing he is addressing, is enormously comforting.
We have debate, we have opposing views. But there is no need for us to brow beat one another.
I went to a party this weekend and I had a really wonderful time. I am grateful to the person who threw this party, because good times are few and far between these days. There was lashings of civil behavior everywhere.
I am a fan of politeness. Did you know that in the theatre, if you are in the way of a stage hand, he doesn't say "get the hell out of my way" (at least the good ones don't) . Do you know what he/she says? He says "clear please". Can we not at least practice this simple kindness to one another?
I used to be a stage manager (I've done most everything in the theatre) and when I was the most stressed, I was the most polite. "Ladies and gentleman, this is your 15 minute call". And I would get back the most polite response from the people even more stressed than I was. "Thank you 15".
Today my boss and I met about something that I was proposing. He disagreed with me. I pushed my patience button. I tried to listen. I heard what he had to say. He had some good points. I had some good points. I don't know what will happen, but it pleased me.
Civility pleases me. Because it means that we are listening to one another.
Let us, dearest cherubs, listen.
Warmly, and with love, Margaret
Those familiar with my writings, will know that occasionally I post a list. Here's my first "blog" list.
I am from the age of civility. And so for me, to see a president who is civil on the evening news, no matter how huge the severity of the thing he is addressing, is enormously comforting.
We have debate, we have opposing views. But there is no need for us to brow beat one another.
I went to a party this weekend and I had a really wonderful time. I am grateful to the person who threw this party, because good times are few and far between these days. There was lashings of civil behavior everywhere.
I am a fan of politeness. Did you know that in the theatre, if you are in the way of a stage hand, he doesn't say "get the hell out of my way" (at least the good ones don't) . Do you know what he/she says? He says "clear please". Can we not at least practice this simple kindness to one another?
I used to be a stage manager (I've done most everything in the theatre) and when I was the most stressed, I was the most polite. "Ladies and gentleman, this is your 15 minute call". And I would get back the most polite response from the people even more stressed than I was. "Thank you 15".
Today my boss and I met about something that I was proposing. He disagreed with me. I pushed my patience button. I tried to listen. I heard what he had to say. He had some good points. I had some good points. I don't know what will happen, but it pleased me.
Civility pleases me. Because it means that we are listening to one another.
Let us, dearest cherubs, listen.
Warmly, and with love, Margaret
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
