Archive

source

Tech companies scale (up and down) in technology time. Technology time is fundamentally different than human time. But because machines can’t talk intelligently to other people, people are hired to translate protocols (1) through language and (2) in time.

If a machine scales down, it lets go of the creative person, who can find another startup. To break this cycle, they can think about their version of scaling up/down, linguistic advantage, and the ability to sense make through different modes.

I am excited to share a diagram of a couple of living ideas.

Some axioms in this diagram.

Design is the self, and then there is communication and organization. Articulating the self (putting language on intuition, one of the descriptors of my coaching practice) betters communication, which returns self-knowledge.

Source

Labels, as in ‘professional boxes,’ are technology in the negotiation between the richness of a creative self and the limited attention span of the market.

With this technology, organizations and people calculate talent, maintain reputations, and make professional circles.

Source

What do you say when not replying?

Verbal communication is the aggregate of signals and meta-signals: textures of ideas that hold different energy based on their meaning. Such textures are underpinned by meta-signals, which make them believable or void.

So, we always communicate, even when we don’t say anything.

It is worth a daily reminder that creatives are asked not to fit in. Creativity is a new way of looking at the world (amongst its many definitions).

Because someone is paying for time (/ideas), this is transactional and necessitates talking about space with earthly language.

Source

When we meet for a creative exchange or other communication, we may meet in the thinking or exchange 'pre-made' thinking.

Exchanging thinking is swapping parcels of clarity, unavailable for new creativity and limited to a particular view of the self and the other person. Like lego, it can be arranged but not materially changed.

Source

Feedback hijacks gravity.

If I say something in a particular (or no) sense, a piece of feedback could in/validated. That act of broadcasting how the listener receives is only one way of understanding. It is hard to imagine giving feedback on something you don't fully understand.

That might be called discourse or a discussion. The issue is addressing the moment of coherence rather than assuming it. Assuming the coherence or generality of an audience can render a living idea dead.

A few years ago, I wrote a manifesto for generous design. I remember it resonating and being a vehicle for some wonderful conversations. I even ended up printing some copies and mailing them. More recently, as part of coaching training, I shared it and spoke through the concepts.

It was energizing to see how alive it was, as a personal philosophy, a piece of evergreen writing which came about during a period of personal change and growth. I wrote it when I was shifting from corporate innovation to coaching.

Next year, I will start a year-long circle, the evolution of Critical Business School, but closer to coaching. Participants will articulate their personal philosophy using prompts, briefs, and practices. Some models and ideas are already in formation but better explained in conversation rather than in asynchronous mediums.

To that end, I scheduled an open 30-minute zoom call every two weeks until the end of the year. Feel free to register or send any questions.

Source

Clarity is limiting because it is fixed and sealed.

Today's clarity (through articulation or objects) cannot integrate tomorrow's creativity unless we produce a new version of 'clarity.' Thinking cannot be versioned, especially when it does not exist in language.

source

Efficiency asks to make the most from the least resources. The problem (/opportunity) presents itself when considering cause and effeteness (of our actions), our value (as feedback), and what is scarce (what we are cherishing). We often think of time or money – but if we accept that all technology connects people to others, we should use as little efficiency as possible in communication.

Suddenly, the person on the other side of the line might be less forgiving of the cumbersome, machine-generated communication aesthetic.

The wickedness is that the communicator must first identify their aesthetic of communication to differentiate it from the machine’s.

Source

All leaders are self-leaders. That means that leadership is a (continuous) mode, self-curiosity, detached from a title or a setting. Being (1) thoughtful, (2) reflective, and (3) in (adaptive) service are some factors that can get us to mean what we say. And in that way, allow others to be and do.

A leader is a render of this state of mind. It is the product of that process. Appreciating the order of things can help celebrate achievements and keep looking for blind spots.

This week I invite you to consider what is an invisible form of leadership you’re practicing.

Source

Non-conformity is aesthetics, and aesthetics is not conforming. Belonging and creativity can exist in opposition.

It is up to those who tend to environments (/businesses/schools) and those who attend them to manage the absoluteness of belonging.

Sales, the dreaded word, is everywhere and engaged by everyone. When offering a chair or an opinion on a social platform, we seek buyers using money or (fractional) attention.

Sales of thin value are bad for the seller, the buyer, and the environment. If a consultant discovers a slim need for a new product, that need will ask for raw material and the attention and attempted care by all creatives involved.

From a sensing perspective, thin value is anecdotal and non-systematic. It is a narrow gaze and even a narrower feedback mechanism. A generative value is systematic (vertically) and adaptive (more on this in the future, (The Overview Effect comes to mind).

Philosophy is someone else's.
It is so general, by design. It articulates first principles shared by the very nature of things, which makes it laborsome to land in our respective contexts. Philosophizing, on the other hand, is asking what it means. It always starts with what it means for me and maybe climbs into a bit of what it means to the person I am speaking to and then a group of people in my shared local context.

In many ways, all philosophy starts from philosophizing, and the more general it becomes, the denser it reads.

Philosophizing is a handy mode and has all of the virtues of philosophy. Primarily, self-authorship (beyond the tyranny of the status quo) in managing with inertia (from culture, habits, and commitments).

Part of the idea of vertical scaling is that we allow ourselves to change and pursue new thoughts while helping others. If we were to seek a traditional scale, we would limit tomorrow's ideas to yesterday's plans. When we craft a message and set it up to make it (or us) popular, it will inevitably control us. The more snug our niche is, the harder it will be to build a bridge out of it.

Vertical scaling is the idea that we deliver more value to a slowly growing number of people. That means that the (1) places where we do that and the (2) nature of that value change, but the containers (the interpersonal space for communication) stay robust while you're in each other's orbit. As an update and an invitation to draw your own, I am sharing my current places of mediation in this Figma file.

I am cross-posting a short essay I wrote on AI and design with the hope that it contains provocations that can be used as prompts and practices (I italicized some jump-off points). The original is at https://byed.it/80/20-aesthetics.

One (of many) blindspots for those who subscribe to efficiency practices (e.g., 'second brain') is that not all time (doing the same activity) is the same.

In the field of communication, meaning and value cluster together. It is up to thoughtfulness to strategize our personal, interpersonal, and collective resources.

We could be churning water in a pool of thin communication, not realizing there is no meaning to forage.

I started a meta-community in early 2020, just before we all stayed at our desks. 

The goal is to write and rewrite, to practice and rehearse,  to move from knowledge to wisdom, to get to know one's context

A living throught that made a recent comeback is the breakdown of editorial, pedagogical and transformational forms of communication.

To recap, editorial communication is a set of answers to a group of questions. The most obvious example of editorial communication is a story or media.

Having spent some time last week at a coaching conference, I listened to a growing discernment: thought leaders can't be coaches, and coaches can't be thought leaders. That is because thought leaders are in contract with their thoughts in a way that necessitates limiting curiosity. Whereas coaches must maximize their affordance to let go of assumptions to change gravities in conversation.

Coaching and design have a lot more in common than people realize; A good designer is curious about shifting perceptive (micro to macro, or the other way), finding the difference that makes a difference, and new pathways of meaning in language.

This week's prompt is: are you in contract with ideas?

Cliches are tired language, protocols of communication, and incapable of transferring meaning. While we might use certain sayings with firm intent, and precision, the listener will not hear their meaning. As a packaged language, they’re drained of energy and not creative anymore.

This week, I invite you to take stock of the cliches surrounding you daily.

Fitting in comes at the cost of conformity. When we leave an open space for constructive misunderstanding, we can energize containers to take on a not-yet-known (and often more creative) direction of thinking.

More tactically, when a group of people meets to achieve a particular goal, fitting in is inevitable: we need to delegate, assign or assume roles, and reach a standard finish line.

I deposit that this process is not binary, and there are a few (or many) steps on the ways to create alignment. Rushing to alignment too early (/say with immediate introductions) has dire consequences for individual creativity and the container's energy level.

What thought are you most excited about developing?

Ordinarily, we justify intuition using experience or education. In that way, our thinking asks for permission and builds in the speed of approval—project by project, a trusting client at a time.

In the space beyond the moment-to-moment sense-making and long-term projections, there is a blindspot to look ahead in the shorter term, between adaptability and seeing things through.

I organically found myself doing this twice a year, around the beginning of the summer and the end of the year. Reflecting and taking stock of moment of meaning, what needs to be carried ahead in new ways can be left behind.

This week's practice is to consider how many times a year you want to look at the rearview mirror and, simultaneously, the road ahead. Jot these notes in the form and place of your choosing.

Friends –

I am inviting you to a new initiative (experiment of one, for now).

On July 8th, at noon EST, we will meet for 60 minutes to discuss and answer this publication's prompts, briefs, and practices. It will be free for paying subscribers and $10 for anyone else.

We will limit the space to keep it the right size.

When coaching, with system thinking in mind, one thing that repeatedly comes up is linearity and complexity – in particular, moving from linear views to sensing more details and appreciating multiplicity (of nuances, views, opinions).

Complexity is an overwhelming concept. Every semester teaching complexity, students feel disoriented when grasping that complexity is always there and needs to be noticed. Or said differently: a system (/anything) is as complex as we need (accept) it to be.

If we want to avoid surrendering to complexity (/foregoing agency), we ought to consider not only what is in view (detailed or reductive) but also its crop. Framing and reframing, which I often use in coaching and writing, can be defined as 'cropping reality'.

How to build a space that allows for cultivating meaning (/creativity) and not only transaction?

Most spaces (communities, collaboration rooms, Slacks) operate on an invisible contract of transactionality. A community, for example, has a goal (/culture fit). Its members introduce themselves and exchange respective utility until outcomes.

Through time in the Living Ideas workshop and coaching, it is becoming clear that once we see meaning (/find habits to see it), we could turn it into a few forms of question. A current short list, far from conclusive, includes briefs and prompts. Briefs exist in the world, where we collaborate and work with its constraints. Prompts move away from a shared language and into richer, personal meaning. Practices can help with either type of question with a regular cadence.

For this week's brief I invite you to consider the best time to look for meaning.

When we meet people in a certain way, with openness and creativity, we exchange energy. Such meetings result in a surplus of energy. When we bring energy and allow it to flow, we leave with more than we came. We must not confuse outcomes and energy. Many transactional moments are draining. In other words, there is a subset of meetings with no product where energy exists, and we might be blind to its value.

As a practice, I invite you to take stock of your last month of meetings, or at least 15, and mark (with a pen or in a list) discussions that stood out in their energy.

As we diversify our practice (move from legos to soup), we shift from binary cause-and-effect thinking to integrating inspiration across roles and ideas. Taking the time to understand where ingredients (/of inspiration) come from is fun and valuable, like traveling but being happy to return home.

This week's prompt is:

Inwards reflection, look for the (1) meaning (2) we see (3) in the things we do. We don't always have the habit and affordance to communicate meaning in the world.

Can we consider the framing of meaning in mundane, day-to-day activities?

This week's brief is:
Find a few (2-3) anecdotes (stories, developments, cultural moments) and consider what they mean. Can you write their meaning in a communicable way and share it?

A prompt is a question point inwards, asking for language, and results in getting to know oneself better. For example: what bores you?

Briefs ask for collaboration (with another person or knowledge). It is anchored in a gravity (situation) and converges on a shared space. For example: what is the secret of a work-life balance?

Part of self-authorship is finding our way to a place of thinking (practice/faculty/solitude). When we act on things we know, it is hard (and not incentivized) to open up definitions and ideas for their meaning and further potential. Prompts can nudge us in that direction, invite us to integrate new understandings, and teach us about the decisions and opinions that come to us intuitively.

This week's prompt is:
When do you prompt yourself?

As I mentioned before, writing on this site is pausing, but I wanted to keep this Substack up for its archive. I will port this list to Being in Space, where I still write weekly (paid list, with free previews – today’s post will be free). Writing on complexity and design is now going to be part of entropy-of-creativity.com.

Feel free to comment with thoughts or places you write on complexity, design, and creativity.

Nitzan

One way of thinking of practice is a habit for reflection, a reminder to look for moments of value. The cadence and shape of practices can be communicable technology (/media) or self-authored. There are benefits to sharing practices: accountability, support, and discourse. But the risk of losing texture when we flatten meaning into language too soon. I invite you to consider the things you do regularly. It might be writing, drawing, or reading on a particular topic. Can you find the origin of this habit? Do you share its outcome with others?

This week's prompt is:
How often do you look for meaning?

How to describe a frame without drawing a picture?

The prompt workshop left behind a realization: it is necessary to prompt oneself when asking for creativity from others. Prompting is a subset of questions that frame/reframe and act on the energy from pulling on interests.

It is a unique form of communication that shares meaning before anchoring it in stories.

Personally meaningful but not yet clear, these creative ruminations are malleable and open to interpretation. Carrying them along asks for a particular container. The Living Ideas workshop is one such container. Participants will write practices to articulate and develop ideas that grow in meaning as they grow in scope.

Minimum viability is a manifestation of efficiency, popularized by digital living. On a mundane level, the fallacy of putting in less and expecting the same is comical. In a more realistic sense, we must prioritize. We can't give all of us everything; otherwise, we will never get out of bed in the morning.

This week's prompt is:
What can use more time?

A quick note to share that I Know Myself is now part of The Entropy of Creativity.

I also realized that a private Substack is not the best place for the book and will be a different private way of publishing it.

Feel free to get in touch if you are interested in this (paid) group. It will include synchronous/CBS-style discussions as well.

What happens when we 'step out of our comfort zone'? What might we notice, and what can we do with it?

As a starting point, I invite you to consider dualities, for example, generosity and discernment. When we move out of available spaces (/culture) and go into new ones, what are the things that register with us? Can we celebrate the positive ones? When the negative ones (/annoyances), can we reframe them and make them useful (/meaningful)?

Minimum viability is non-compatible with complexity.

We can use it as a threshold milestone but not as a moment of generalization. Complexity design differs from linear system thinking and cybernetics in its meta adaptability: adjusting feedback mechanisms.

Minimum viability is the minimum thinking needed to produce some pseudo-generalization that can scale to all instances.

I am cross-posting a new project: a book that only exists in a private substack, and as long as it is alive.

Introducing: The Entropy of Creativity 

I am cross-posting a new project: a book that only exists in a private substack, and as long as it is alive.

Introducing: The Entropy of Creativity 

Precision is generally a good thing, but some things suffer from being put on shelves. We might help clients think through things that are hard to measure, qualitative attributes of work, but seldom hold a mirror on our practice. Where do we look to see how we're doing?

This week's prompt is:
What are you over-indexing?

When we go about our days, living our careers, we do things we know how to do and think about things we may not yet. If we don't get a chance to complete a thought, these thoughts stay as concepts and abstract (yet meaningful) ruminations. We need to put them into words to position them in physics, relationships, and reality. Of course, not all thinking is the same, and that thinking process is nothing but linear. There is a personal space of thinking, which we may call faculty, back of the house, or simple solitude. Accessing it is always a net positive.

This week's prompt is:
What gets in the way of thinking?

We use context as a focal point for thoughtful design in human-centered design. Following on the thread that all technology is communication between people, I want to add the idea of meta messaging.

What we say (or don't say) is always covered in a layer of meta messaging.

What does it mean when you're off video in a group Zoom? Or when you start a meeting in small-talk? Introduce oneself, or look for commonalities? Beyond leading to particular affordances, there is very active tacit communication – primarily as meta signals are sent and received.

As we develop and change, inevitable gaps will develop between a future self and the present one. The eventual goal is self-actualization: a healthy equilibrium between how we see ourselves and how the world sees us. By 'seeing,' we imply a harmony (/negotiation) between our different modes—the invisible personas in the room: the project manager, the business person, the designer.

If solitude is the place of sweet creativity, where language is not needed, the external world (where things get done) is the opposite. All we have is language (implicit or explicit).

We suggest moving from binary thinking to thoughtfulness. The same is true about oscillation, self-actualization, and navigating 'getting things done.'

Economic mediation is a mediation of communication. If we accept that all technology exists to facilitate human communication, the same applies to the subset of communication which is value.

Technological scale fools us to believe that we eat the cake (reach everyone) and keep it whole (hold value). A reminder that value is the function plus aesthetic. And aesthetic is the differentiator of the same utility. When we scale (product, communication) with as little friction as possible, we remove aesthetics (in product and communication) in exchange for neat function (disembodied value).

A new version of local communication can exist in the digital world — independent of a cluster of inertias which is (1) the marketplace of ideas (/personal media), (2) walled gardens (network effect/scale), and towards a (3) sustainable value exchange (self-actualization in sync with performing work).

What are we disconnecting from when we say we're 'going off the grid'?

Grids represent a network of communication, nomenclature, and, most importantly, inertia. When we go 'off the grid,' we usually signal that we need a break from expectations. But that does not necessarily set an intention to negotiate with such expectations in the future.

This week's prompt is:
What is your grid?

In the spirit of philosophizing, as a language and value-enriching activity, I encourage us to consider what we sell in 'services'? (Including the management of products).

It seems that most of it are to do with cause and effect. With a particular input, your business system will render an output. It is curious because we might turn around the next moment and talk about the unexpectedness of the world.

Services seem to be wavering on both sides of this line between action and outcome.

Sport is a negotiation with gravity. When we add language to intuition, ideas open up to negotiation. They still exist in duality but are not anchored to it. Like the metaphor of fields, intuition understood in one gravity brings safety (I am an expert in x) but carries a risk. When we use new alignments, we can understand them between multiple fields (frame and reframe).

This week's prompt is:
What are you negotiating?