Gaia Community: Sam's Blog

A Web Beyond Ego (and a simple request)

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:11:27 -0000

We live, as Madonna aptly put it, in a material world (although unlike her protagonist, I happen to be a material boy). Although that world has brought humanity many benefits, we now must make the leap toward a higher stage of development. And one magazine and website is making sure that happens: What Is Enlightenment?.

WIE.org is up for a Webby--the Oscars of the web--again, and has the opportunity to win the presitigious award two years in a row. If they do, it's a huge victory for all of us who want to see the medium enable a culture beyond ego.

So do our species a favor, and vote for WIE today. The directions are simple: just register for a free account, enter your activation code, and choose "What Is Enlightenment" under Living/Religion & Spirituality.

Your grandchildren will thank you!

Small branding in a big economy

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:46:52 -0000

Chris Anderson, of Long Tail fame, just wrote a great post on niche branding. The central thesis: niche brands do better because they're more authentic.

Brands like Converse. Which is vegetarian. And also happens to be owned by Nike. Which has significantly improved its business practices-but is still equated with sweatshops and blah couture.

What is interesting here (to me at least) is that the increasing preference for authenticity is a strikingly postmodern phenomenon-a reaction to the corporatism and mass marketeering of modernity. That is, wanting small over big certainly reflects a desire for the "micronarratives" of postmodernism that stand in contradistinction to the "macronarratives" of modernity.

The economic system, though, as evidenced by Anderson's post, continues to run on industrial scales: corporate behemoths like Hershey's end up gobbling gems like Dagoba (one of my favorite chocolate brands), and often the consumer is none the wiser. Small business may drive the economic engine of America, but we consumers still mostly buy brands that we can find most easily (I know I shop most frequently at Banana Republic-owned by Gap, Inc., which apparently is become a better corporate citizen).

Is it "bad," though? What if all of the behemoths began adopting more conscious practices? Could big business save the world (after they save the cheerleader)?

No easy answers, to be sure. But at least let's start the conversation.

A self divided (against itself) cannot stand

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:37:34 -0000

Cross-posted here.

Barack Obama's recent presidential bid announcement alluded to Lincoln's famous quote: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Allegations of Obama as a would-be supporter of slavery notwithstanding, the freshman presidential-hopeful evoked an ever-powerful force in American political rhetoric: encapsulation of Honest Abe's spirit.

Yet I couldn't help but think: we're facing different challenges today than Lincoln did in his time. That much is obvious, you might say. But more subtle is how our present life conditions impact the way we think.

For example, the problems of Lincoln's time focused mainly on externally visible division within the body politic-namely, the debate on slavery and, as a result, the increasingly imminent threat of civil war.

Yet today, for those of us with the greatest amount of time, education, and wealth, we have evolved beyond (for the most part) the divisions our 19th century ancestors faced. This is especially true for my generation: we grew up well after Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, not to mention Brown v. Board, and assume political equality as a basic value and right.

Yet the problems keep on piling up. We know the system's not working. And we know it's not because of a dearth of "good ideas." The barrier, as we've seen, is in coming together and collectively solving pressing issues.

What could possibly keep us from coming together? Well, for one... us! Our own commitment to seeing ourselves as separate-which isn't our fault, but rather simply a product of the individualism of the Enlightenment and relativism of postmodernism-acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In other words, as long as we see our selves as separate, we'll remain divided-even if only subtly so. And because our perspectives define our actions, and our actions impact the world around us, changing our perspectives would inevitably have demonstrable impact on the world. And if the impact we want to have is to create a more whole, unified, cohesive body politic, then our perspectives must reflect an equal wholeness.

Which means that we must see ourselves as whole-that we must evolve beyond internal division, so that our actions can result in external unification.

Maybe the signpost of our generation is, "A self divided cannot stand." Maybe then we could really come together and accomplish something extraordinary.

Permission to take on multiple perspectives, sir?

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:52:25 -0000

Cross-posted here.

"If 70 percent of all affirmative action recipients failed out of UCLA, should the policy be continued?"

"Have we evolved as a country to the level of ‘race-blind' consciousness-that is, like Stephen Colbert, do we no longer see race?"

"Does affirmative action help or hurt minorities?"

Interesting questions. What's the answer?

Well, it's either "yes" or "no." That's a problem.

Why? Because affirmative action-along with any political issue-is actually a collection of issues, all of which have surface-level manifestations (like "racial quotas") and deeper dynamics (like the belief 'codes‘ the define the questions we're asking about them).

People have become accustomed to answering "yes" or "no" when it comes to politics. We love to complain, to make the other side wrong, to get stuck in a position. And since politics concerns values, we can get pretty emotional about the things that matter to us.

I want to propose something radical: we're addicted to ‘dichotomous egotism'-to being right, to ‘winning' at the expense of the other, to being better than ___________. And for some reason, that egotism manifests most strongly in political contexts.

But that can change. Indeed, in my own experience, when a person gets the permission to take on multiple perspectives, to really open up, to go beyond argumentation and look for collaborative solutions-miracles can happen.

I witnessed it tonight. Four people, all from different backgrounds, all with seemingly divergent views, came to an agreement about affirmative action, one that transcended and included traditionally partisan debate.

Transpartisanship is real-but first, we need to give each other the permission to look beyond the divides. And ultimately, that means going beyond any division whatsoever, inner or outer.

The Transpartisan Light of the Future

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:58:36 -0000

Cross-posted here.

There is a term in the social sciences called the "Shadow of the Future." It refers to the incentive political actors have to cooperate in the present based on (fearful) anticipation of the future.

The Shadow of the Future comes from a thought experiment call the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which the police hold two prisoners in separate cells.

Say you're Prisoner A.

Here's what I tell you:

"If you don't squeal, and your partner does, you'll get 20 and he'll walk free. If you do squeal on your partner, and your partner doesn't, you'll get 0 and he gets 20. If neither of you confesses, you both walk free. And if both of you confess, you'll each get 5."

If you trust each other, you'll both get the best possible outcome by not squealing: 0 years in prison. If you don't trust each other, you assume your partner will squeal on you-if he does, you get 20. And if you squeal and he doesn't, you walk free. If both of you squeal, you only serve 5.

So what do you do? Squeal, of course. Why? Because you don't trust each other.

What changes the potential outcome of the Prisoner's Dilemma, according to social science, is the knowledge that you may meet your partner again the future, that your paths will cross-in this context, politically. And because you will likely either (a) want something from him or (b) be in a compromised position in relationship to him, you do the right thing.

This assumption-that human relationships are grounded in a fundamental lack of trust, based on entrenched self-interest-underlies our approach to politics. In fact, it is the foundation of our very institutional design.

This is, in many respects, a good thing: tyranny, in the form of fascism, totalitarianism, nationalism, will always represent a threat to humanity. We need institutions, those with checks and balances, to protect our basic rights.

But is the assumption of competition and mistrust all for which we can hope? Is that it?

Only if we believe that consciousness is a static, permanent ‘thing': human beings will always be so self-interested that they cannot trust each other.

But if consciousness can evolve, the picture changes: rather than making a statement about how human beings "are," we ask a question about what they could become. And we inquire into we need to do and think to enable the evolution of consciousness, rather than assuming it's idealistic or impossible; otherwise, we must accept the Prisoner's Dilemma as reality and the Shadow of the Future as the incentive for right action.

But what if humans could develop a purity of motive that aligned with the evolutionary impulse? And what if that turned into integrity in action?

In other words, are we basing our actions on the shadow of the future, or the light?

How clear is your message?

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:28:58 -0000

Cross-posted here.

When visitors come to your website, do they know what you're asking of them? Have you provided clear directions-and direction? Does your design make navigation ‘easy as 1-2-3′ (there's a reason the saying doesn't include ‘4-5-6-7...'), or are you assuming they'll just ‘choose their own adventure'?

This is a sign in the cafe at Penn's main library. It reads, "Food Must be Consumed in Mark's Cafe." The intention of the message is pretty obvious, and it took me a couple of seconds to think about the other meaning: whenever you are in Mark's Cafe, you MUST consume food.

It's subtle, but there's a qualitatively better way to phrase the sign: "While in the library, please consume food in Mark's Cafe only"-or simply the second clause alone.

Now, this is a university, and Penn's goal is not to maximize the "conversions" of people who eat at Mark's based on that sign. But the point still stands: how clear is your message? It's something worth considering-for more than two seconds.

Relationships, relationships, relationships...

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:25:29 -0000

Cross-posted here.

No, not those kinds of relationships...

I'm referring to the kinds of relationships that fuel successful businesses - you know, professional relationships.

I've mentioned the "mystical internet" before. One of my goals when wearing my marketing hat is to demystify the internet for readers, friends, clients, and, perhaps one day, my nieces.

Email marketing is one of the least understood aspects of interactive marketing. From my experience, the success of an email marketing program - even beyond granular testing and segmentation, which is undoubtedly critical - is directly correlated to the quality of relationships within the email marketer's niche.

The ideal scenario for building a highly responsive email list is one that is both low-cost and high-leverage (gets you the largest bang for your buck). And there is no better way to "guerilla" your email marketing program than to develop an uncommon depth of relationship with those in your network.

How do you do that? Focus on their goals first. Help them get what they want. Do as much work for them as you can. It's common sense, but I've seen this technique foiled or forgotten time and time again.

For whom are you most likely to do something? Either those whose attention and respect you want to gain and/or those who have done the most for you. So if you already have people beating a path to your door, then you're the one others want to impress. But if you're still looking for that "golden" strategy to build your list, look no further than the people in your Rolodex (or, in my case, Gmail).

Next, I'll focus on the importance of building relationships with those who have entrusted you with their email addresses (aka, "your" list)...

Expressing "transpartisan"

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:38:54 -0000

Cross-posted here.

During a conversation on politics, culture, and technology with a friend the other day, the issue of "what is and how do we explain transpartisan?" came up. I told him how, while waiting for the bus earlier this week, I attempted to explain transpartisanship to a couple.

"It's looking at politics from a more complex, multidimensional frame."

"It's recognizing that policy solutions are more than just ‘yes' or ‘no,' that we need to explore stratified solutions based on multiple variables."

On our call, another description arose: "It's the ability to take on multiple perspectives on any given issue."

A little more complex is the integral description: "It's looking at any political issue as both individual and collective, subjective and objective."

All of these point toward "something," yet they remain too ambiguous and unsystematized to take seriously as a political theory. (We'll be publishing a paper on Transpartisan.org (once the site is up--you can sign up in the meantime), that represents the most in-depth description of transpartisanship yet.)

What I do know is that the idea itself, and the model that is beginning to merge, are both attractive to everyday concerned citizens and recognized as valuable to the political process and society as a whole.

Time for some blog cloning...

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:35:44 -0000

Man... I've been blogging so much here, but I keep forgetting to post HERE!!

So I'll be doing some back-logging and -loading over the next week, freshening up my stank ol' Zaadz blog...

SR

Where is the evolutionary edge? Part II(b)

Mon, 02 Oct 2006 06:48:14 -0000

Michael, your technology offers people an unparalleled sense of "I can," or, in iStand's unique case, "I stand," which is even more powerful -- "The more I see that I stand in the face of everything, the more I take bold action; the more I take bold action, the more I see that a better future is possible; the more I see that a better future is possible, the more positively I view humanity; the more positively I view humanity, the more I care about the future of the world..." And if we can get more people caring about the future of the world, then hey, I'm all for that!

Personally -- as the identity of Sam Rosen -- I am called toward awakening beyond any sense of separation whatsoever so that consciousness can evolve through me, with as little interference from ego -- the sense that I am unique -- as possible. That means I have to awaken to the Authentic Self permanently. And that means I have to evolve beyond ego. From an evolutionary perspective, considering the fact that humans have never made a leap beyond ego together, I am called deeply to the challenge of joining a group of individuals who have chosen to transcend ego in order for consciousness to evolve in this world...

I get and accept that [in the relative world] each of our identities, our personalities, our avatars, has special properties; this is a consequence, as I see it, of the evolutionary process of differentiation. On this level, the goal is to become even more of an individual, an independent thinker, which is an ongoing process. And yet, I am most interested in what makes us non-separate, that is, that which is possible to experience beyond the ego, beyond the personality, beyond the avatar... And that's what I see Andrew striving to birth -- consciousness beyond the individual, expressed through individuals who come together for the sake of evolution itself, and who, necessarily, choose to want to evolve, who want to liberate consciousness from the ego more than anything else.

w00t!

Where is the evolutionary edge? Part II(a)

Mon, 02 Oct 2006 06:45:41 -0000

[Disclaimer: these are entirely my interpretations, and while I strive to understand this emerging landscape as best I can and look to Andrew as a teacher, please know that I'm posting these definitions and thoughts based on my own viewpoints.]

Okay... excerpts from my conversation with Michael Skye, continued:

When I say "enlightenment," I am pointing to awakening beyond any sense of separation whatsoever, which allows consciousness to evolve freely and unendingly without ego interfering.

"Ego" is the sense of separation, and has two implications, one positive -- the capacity for human beings to see themselves outside of a cultural context and thus think independently, thereby avoiding conformity and groupthink -- and negative -- the compulsive need to see oneself as an individual, which manifests in our [postmodern] culture as "narcissism."

(In lower levels of development, ego is embedded within the tribe, culture, nation, and cannot see itself as separate; only when individuals develop the capacity see themselves as separate entities can they evolve beyond ego, and that's precisely when they need to!)

I am referring to the "evolution of consciousness" as more of a cosmological property that manifests in and through individuals than simply an increase in personal awareness of one's values (although the latter is clearly important; I am merely making an observation of what I perceive as the edge of what's possible, the highest evolutionary potential available to humans at this point in history).

I believe that the pursuit and teaching of self-mastery continues to positively affect a great number of people's lives, indeed, that true self-mastery represents an incredibly, incredibly high level of personal evolution (a la Maslow's "self-actualization").

I am simply saying that there is an edge beyond that, which is impersonal evolution, and that the highest conceivable level of self-mastery is stil identified with the historical personality in space and time, and thus, on a fundamental level, still contains limits, whereas evolution beyond ego, which is, again, the sense of being a separate individual, seems to be inherently limitless -- it pertains to consciousness itself as a cosmological property, uninibited by self-image.

(See this article to get a better sense of where I am coming from: "I CAN" vs. "I AM": What Is the Relationship Between Self-Mastery and Enlightenment? http://www.wie.org/j15/andrew.asp)

Free Hugs, YouTube, and the Road to Stardom

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:28:26 -0000

Fascinating story emerging from YouTube.

Musician from Australia wants to rock the world. Musician gets inspired by “Free Hug” guy. Puts one and one together, and realizes he can rock the world while spreading a positive message. Puts “Free Hug” guy video to music and publishes on YouTube.

Tomorrow, musician and band gets broadcast to 4 million people on Good Morning America. Get front page on MySpace and YouTube. Around 605,000 views already. Sick Puppies have gotten the viral thang down (see, I even promoted them in my blog only semi-consciously — not because I’m a huge fan of the music, although it ain’t bad).

Oh, and Tom Munnecke create the Free Hug Liberation Front. Soldiers, it’s time to hug some people. Man, I sure do love revolutionary fluffiness!

Where's the evolutionary edge?

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:25:55 -0000

I’ve been having an interesting “debate” (more of a dialogue) with Michael Skye, friend and revolutionary par excellence. Thought I’d include an excerpt below:

What about collective intelligence, the actual evolution of human consciousness beyond the individual (broadly speaking, from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric to cosmocentric)? I see this as the edge of conscious evolution. There is personal evolution — I am becoming a better, more compassionate, more visionary person — and there is impersonal, or universal, evolution — I am evolving beyond the sense that I am separate so that consciousness can evolve beyond identifications with tribe, race, nation, culture, even global community. Plenty of people are in the business of the former, while almost no one is authentically in the business of the latter…

…if you want to really evolve consciousness at the edge of cultural evolution — I’m referring to the very small percentage of the population who is the most educated and conscious — then I believe more, not fewer, demands need to be placed on the individual to evolve beyond ego. One way to look at human evolution, that is, the evolution of consciousness (from the very first time that a sentient being was aware of knowing itself), is the continual process of the ego, or the self-sense, becoming disembedded from identification with self and culture. So at first, it was all egoic survival — getting food for self and blood — and then it was ethnic survival — looking out for “my” people, whether tribal, religious, or national — and now it’s worldcentric — helping “all people” to thrive and help thrive. Of course, one step beyond this is cosmocentric: identification with consciousness itself as a property of the cosmos. Again, to me, that’s the edge of conscious evolution.

Integral Philly Launches

Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:10:25 -0000

To all Philadelphia area friends, colleagues, and should-be acquaintances:

In an effort to connect more integrally-informed folk in Philadelphia, I am starting Integral Philly. If you are interested, please sign up here. The event listing is here (first gathering on October 11, venue TBA - suggestions welcome), and I have posted this announcement here.

Here’s the description:

“Calling all hipsters, academics, entrepreneurs, doctors, lawyers, artisits, activists, and anyone else you can think of who’s interested in evolving the interior dimension of the Kosmos: Integral Philly is starting, and we’re bringing the revolutionary spirit back to Philly. Only this time, the revolution will be integral. Come one, come all, and bring your tetraperspectival, multidimensional selves to the most evolutionary meetup in town.”

This is an excellent opportunity to meet serious professionals, activist, and entrepreneurs interested in making the world a better place through human development and conscious evolution, as well as growing our Zaadz community. Please feel free to contact me with questions.

What War on Terror?

Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:07:38 -0000

I’ve often thought that the American government’s obsession with starting wars — for instance, on poverty and drugs — does more harm than good. I even wrote a paper on it. Creates fear, dualism, and impossible victory.

But what about a war against the evil terrorists? You know, “them”?

Yet another Orwellian sham that heightens our anxiety and sets us up for failure. Thankfully, one of my professors, Dr. Ian S. Lustick, has the data to prove it. Get his book here, listen to interviews here and here, and read some interesting DailyKos treatments of his work here, here, and here.

Friends and Quadrants

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:57:26 -0000

Just got off the phone with one of my closest friends. Today was one of those days when everything just comes down on you at once. Haven't had one of those in a while... but man, when they hit you, they sure do make you humble!

I know he has work tomorrow, but he stayed on the phone until 12:30 am, and didn't get off until I said it was getting late.

I'm sure he has a million things to do, but he dropped everything.

I always thought that was cliché, but now I see how important it is.

When I told him I was having a problem, he didn't say, "What are you going to do about it?" He said, "What are we going to do about it?" When I told him about my apartment, he said, "Let's get out of there."

I know he's not coming down. But it's the communional authenticity of his verbal gesture that could make a man cry, for...

...in that moment, the "I" and "Thou" communed as "we." What a beautiful manifestation of spirit as intersubjective longing.

When the Upper-Left began to crumble, and the foundations of "I" lost footing, the self, in an Upper-Right frenzy, searched desparately downward toward its Lower-Left counterpart, seeking a commonality, a transcendent "We" that could expose the chaos of Lower-Right reality as illusory.

This is not to deny autonomy and resiliency, of course -- two values I strive to embody on a daily basis -- but rather to point to the delicate sanctity of soulful multiplicity.

I'm grateful for friends.

A generic example of AgreeLive

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:15:21 -0000

Open-sourcing our contract "technology," for all the good people at Zaadz to use! Just sign up at Writely... and keep me posted on how you're using AgreeLive!

AgreeLive^tm

An emergent, living, interdependent agreement between conscious co-creators

CLIENT NAME
CONTRACTOR NAME

Overview

AgreeLive^tm is a new kind of agreement, one based on concepts of flow and emergence, rather than mass and inertia. In traditional legal arrangements, parties would agree to binding measures from a mindset of scarcity and fear; worried that one side would take advantage of the other, signatories would account for as many risks as possible before entering into collaboration. The result has been an overly complex, often incomprehensible “legalese” that creates fear and burdensome complexity before the project even begins. AgreeLive^tm, written in plain English that anyone can understand, represents an emergent iteration of contract law.

Starting with a basic “rules set”–a minimal arrangement that allows both parties to begin collaborating freely–AgreeLive^tmthen adds complexity and elegance based on the life conditions that emerge throughout the lifespan of the working relationship. At every iteration, all parties must consent to the agreement for it to become binding. This “simplicity first” mentality supports a naturally designed, self-organizing collaborative environment that accounts for risk while facilitating a continual flow-state between co-creators.

Agreement

INTENTIONAL

We, CLIENT, and CONTRACTOR, to work together to accomplish the following:

VISION
MISSION
GOALS
- DESIRED OUTCOMES

OPERATIONAL

To accomplish the goals in a fashion that supports CLIENT and CONTRACTOR energetically, we agree to test the following arrangement in an iterative fashion:

SIMPLE PAYMENT TERMS — USUALLY A TRIAL PERIOD.

MORE COMPLEX PAYMENT TERMS — USUALLY OVER A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH FOR CONTRACT, AND 1-5 YEARS
- SPECIFIC BUSINESS LINES (PRODUCTS, SERVICES, ETC.).

If all parties agree to this initial iteration–which can be changed at any point if any of the parties finds it unfavorable–please insert your name, in the form of a comment, below (to do this, click Ctrl-M):

AgreeLive - an emerging concept for contractual agreements

Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:53:03 -0000

Using Writely, a very cool collaborative writing app, we are beginning to explore a new way of making contracts. Here’s what I wrote in the contract itself:

Legalese as an elitist institution?

Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:52:10 -0000

I am currently in the process of writing several contracts and operating agreements. In search online for examples, I have been thoroughly shocked by the sheer incomprehensibility of most samples.

Why is it that contracts are unreasonably complex and difficult to understand? Why do they use an outdated language–that only a lawyer, or someone with a significant exposure to contract law, can understand fully? Is the conventional legalese? Or is law, as it is commonly expressed, an elitist institution that shuts out the many and benefits the few?

Seth Godin: "Good Enough." Yes, and...

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:28:30 -0000

Seth Godin writes:

“I wonder…if ‘good enough’ might be the next big idea. Audio players, cars, dryers, accounting… not the best ever made, not the most complicated and certainly not the most energy-consuming. Just good enough.

“For some people, a clean towel is a clean towel.”

Barry Schwartz, a family friend, all-around mensch, and author of The Paradox of Choice, calls this “satisficing”; in other words, “good enough is good enough.” True indeed. In a variety of everyday situations, the marginal utility of that 19,999th choice has a converse relationship to well-being. Clothing, electronic equipment, towels. Even some life choices.

So let me propose a “yes, and” here:

I am beginning to think that satisficing, or “good enough-ing,” works primarily at what I call the horizontal transactional layer (bear with me; it’s a nascent model). Broadly speaking, the horizontal transactional layer includes purchasing decisions that have a relative equivalence in social value: which vintage Cabernet I should buy for a family get-together, whether I should buy Polo or Banana Republic, whether I should go to Harvard or Yale law school, whether the APR rate of VISA or Mastercard will save me a few more bucks, whether I should get the Audio A4 or the Volkswagen Passat.

Most choices at the horizontal transactional layer are, in the developed world, cogitated ad nauseum.

But here is where I make a distinction between horizontality and verticality as they relate to values systems: certain decisions have vastly differentiated social equivalence, such as: Should I buy brands who support a cradle-to-cradle ecological standard? Which companies espouse socially responsible values? Which shampoo should I buy, the one with or without parabens?

Anyone who saw An Inconvenient Truth knows the importance of informed, socially conscious decision-making. This can, indeed, produce a “cognitive dissonance” that creates tension within the individual psyche. But tension is often what produces positive behavioral change (notice how the Civil Rights Movement demanded equality, not a “good enough” separate but equal policy, and this only came through social dissonance and often violent dialectic).

So if we introduce verticality into the decision-making calculus, tension, which can manifest as anxiety, is often good. The CEO who has to make a fundamental decision about emissions would have a simpler life if he could focus on shareholder return alone. Same with the individual who is confronted with a choice: buy Product A, contribute to ecological and human degradation, or buy Product B, and make a difference. That “difference” is the vertical transactional layer: when the individual is confronted with a natural hierarchy of transactional decisions — BP versus Exxon, say — she will experience tension, which is how evolution occurs (tension, differentiation, growth, integration).

And then there is Tom Munnecke’s transformational layer: Should Nike build a plant that outputs environmentally “good enough” materials, or should they revolutionize the eco-effectiveness of the shoe industry? (And yes, for all the anti-should-ers, I am using the word consciously. Verticality re-introduces “should” in the context of social responsibility.) How can we transform our accounting system so that we eradicate poverty? The transformational layer exists at the revolutionary edge of social consciousness, and revolution cannot occur as long as everyone attempts to maximize personal utility, with one “util” equaling one unit of “happiness” (a wholly outdated calculus based on a false assumption of equilibrium of economic systems).

If we want to make a difference, then we have to realize that “differences” — or value hierarchies — do exist. Of course, flattening out our social landscape makes “happiness,” as narrowly defined by the utilitarians (whose beliefs we continue to naively adopt tacitly), a much simpler goal to attain. And “good enough” is a means to happiness at the horizontal transactional layer. But once we acknowledge the vertical transactional layer, and especially the transformational layer at the revolutionary edge, then our concepts of “good enough” need some serious rethinking.