(Written 14
October 2012; posted 15 October 2012)
The past several years have been a very trying time for me. A divorce and its ensuing bitter, distasteful, and destructive aftermath, a remarriage, the death of my beloved brother-in-law, Jim, the only family member besides my daughters I could have deep philosophical conversations with, then a fortnight later the death of my father, a very overwhelming influence in my life, a gallant yet ultimately unsuccessful attempt to open a retail shop, the day-to-day struggle to pay bills- all of these events, plus just the daily grind, so to speak, caused me to lose focus and interest in just about everything. In other words, I was lost. Of course, diligent readers probably figured this out, as my posts became more sporadic, more “all over the spectrum”, so to speak, and just sometimes contextually incomprehensible. I have done a great deal of soul searching over the past five years, and those closest to me throughout that period, what I like to call my “time in the wilderness”, have (begrudgingly) noticed that I have changed.
I have finally figured out who I am. Up until this past year, I had some very intense people in my life, and, looking in retrospect, I was so busy trying to please them that I was not being true to myself. I had hidden myself in this shell because I didn’t want to hurt those around me, I didn’t want them to feel disappointed or disgusted with me. The shell is quickly breaking apart, and my true self is coming through. I will be the first to admit, I have wandered through adulthood, not intentionally, mind you, but I have wandered just the same. Since leaving graduate school, I have had numerous jobs, and I can count on one finger how many of them I actually felt like I belonged, outside of working for myself. I have run entire departments; I have been a low-level manager like my father; I been just “one of the staff”; I’ve set up barricades, been a janitor, delivered food, worked in a warehouse, painted parking lots, and I have never quite fit in, no matter how hard I have tried. Some say I have tried too hard. Some say I don’t try hard enough. I say that it doesn’t matter, because it has to do with a fundamental difference in life philosophy and worldview. I am a hexagonal peg trying to be crammed into a triangular hole—it doesn’t work, and the net result is conflict and frustration.
I am an outcome based manager in a process-based world. To me, what is most important is that a task is completed correctly and efficiently, and how it is ultimately performed is the choice of whoever is doing the task. However, just about every manager I have ever known is process-based, that is the process is more important than the outcome, and the process is the manager’s process—you know, my way or the highway. I personally find this approach not only degrading, but very counter-productive. First, the process-based approach does not reward efficiency and innovation; instead it discourages it for blind loyalty by punishing those who, to used a very hackneyed phrase, “think outside the box”. Second, it completely destroys any sense of responsibility by those who carry out the task, for if they do not have any ownership, they will not take any responsibility for the process’ failure to deliver a correct or efficient outcome. The result, then, is, as the wise sage Ray Davies wrote, “Give The People What They Want”; in other words, those carrying out the task will perform it exactly as instructed, even if those instructions result in inefficiencies or errors. Finally, it drives off the most talented people, those who could cause the organization to excel, leaving behind the blindly loyal but marginally talented, with the ultimate result being the decay and ultimate demise of the organization itself.
I am an “objective rationalist”. I believe that everything has a logical explanation. Objective rationalism is the antithesis of process-based management, as most processes are based on personal preferences, which tend to be highly subjective and illogical. Of course, it can be argued that there are always exceptions to this generalization, as some processes, while basically a personal preference, do have a logical explanation. For example, my wife prefers her pots to be stacked in a particular manner. This was a point of friction between us, because I did not understand why her choice was superior to how I stack them, until she revealed that using my method the handles are positioned in such a way that sometimes she has difficulty getting the drawer open, whereas although her method is less space efficient, she can always get the drawer open. At first blush, it seems reasonable to conclude that the process was logical and needed to be followed slavishly (other than for the excellent reason of keeping peace in the household by doing what the wife says). However, would not a better conclusion be that the original outcome was deficient? Given the issue of the difficulty of opening the drawer when pots were stacked a certain way, shouldn’t have the outcome been putting the pots away in a manner in which the drawer can always be opened? When the outcome is deficient in this way, then the process does indeed matter; if the outcome is defined correctly, then it doesn’t. Let’s say that I come up with a new method of stacking pots where the handles won’t hinder the ability to open the drawer, would it really matter which process I use to achieve that outcome? Logically it would not, but to those like my wife who are process-based people, yes, as the only correct process is the one that she prefers.
My objective rationalism has impacted all aspects of my life. I had a severe crisis of faith earlier this year, and came to the conclusion that I am an agnostic, which seems to be the logical outcome for an objective rationalist . I don’t deny the possibility of a Diety, but am not convinced that there is not a logical explanation for the heretofor unexplained that are attributed to a Diety. Just because we don’t have a logical explanation yet doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. I know that my family will chastise me for my agnosticism, having spent the first twelve years of my education under the tutelage of Catholic clergy, but the Jesuits taught me to think rationally, and to not just accept things because I was told to. I have tried mightily over the years to buy into religion because it is what my father and society expects, but I just can’t; it is just too illogical. How is it that one could have multiple wives and concubines, but yet there is a commandment against adultery? Given all the hard scientific data available that supports evolution, how is it possible to believe creationism? How can the Bible talk about drinking wine and dancing and yet it be interpreted in such a way that both activities are considered sinful? Interestingly, I have come up with some logical explanations for these apparent contradictions that only my atheist and agnostic friends were ever willing to discuss; despite the fact that these explanation help buttress their theology, I have failed to find a single religious person who follows the teachings of the Bible, including friends, family, and former fellow churchmates, who has been willing to listen, which is completely illogical to me.
The argument of the pro-lifers is one of the most illogical of all. The pro-lifers say that life begins at conception, and thus abortion is murder and should be made illegal. Completely logical. The exception is where all logic breaks down, as the pro-lifers say that exceptions should be made for rape, incest, and threat to the mother’s health. In my rational logical mind, if life begins at conception, and if abortion is murder, then isn’t taking the life of a baby who was conceived by rape or incest, or whose presence could harm the life of the mother, murder? How do you make an exception of an absolute? If all life begins at conception, then it begins at conception all of the time, not when someone arbitrarily decides that it doesn’t. For those who choose to forget, religion actually justified slavery in the pre-Civil War South! Let that sink in for a moment. Religion actually justified some human beings being treated as not as human as other human beings! Incredibly, religion still does today, except now instead of being based on the color of our skin, it is based on gender. According to religion, my daughters are somehow inferior to my sons, which is completely illogical to me, as the last time I looked, my daughters are just as human as my sons. Not only does religion say that my daughters are inferior, they also say that a life partner of the same gender is not as good as a life partner of the opposite gender. This also does not compute to my objective rational mind, for one life partner is as good as another, right?
As the wise sage Ricky Nelson wrote, “You can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.” That song, Garden Party, was inspired by a disasterous concert at Madison Sqaure Garden where what the audience expected Ricky to perform is not what he performed and it was not well received.
This is my garden party. I am an objective rationalist; that is who I am. Do not expect me to be anyone else, just like I do not expect the subjective mysticists to be anything but. We can coexist and grow in our own perspectives as long as we both promise to understand our differences, respect each other, and not try to force the other into submission. I am game; are you?