Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds (the mahdi’s arrival)

The greatest thing about a fiction narrative is that truth can be told without a lot of facts running around and distracting us. So in the movie “Lucy” and when actor Morgan Freeman tells us there are only two outcomes for the OODA loop of a cell,  because it is fiction, we can take those facts presented in the fictional movie as truths and run with it.

I already fictionalized what he said by asking you to think of the cell’s life as an OODA loop. If you don’t know what an OODA loop is, then you might as well move on or Google, because I’m not going to get into that discussion here. What I will say is that it sounds to me like cancer starts when, like Lucy, when one cell in your body gives up. There are two option at the end of every OODA loop. Option 1: a human cell becomes immortal and is called a cancer and becomes immortal or Option 2: dying and letting the next generation takeover.

In other words, for a human battling cancer and in a moment of time for one of their cells at the center of its environment, the cell sees no future for other generations of its kind and position. Within the confines of the cells position it becomes immortal and is called cancer. Through the consequences of this decision, the cell’s loop is literally broken by the magnitude of the inertia of that decision and the outcome of this revelation (through the cell’s decision process) and the cell stops evolving and the cell becomes cancer.

A friend of ours, who we have loved since she was 3-years-old, recently died of brain-cancer. I have a hard time believing there was any cell in her body that had given-up, but I have no clue as to what the environment was like when the cell did give-up.

I have said once that cellphones are the cigarettes of her generation, and she loved the cell phone, and selfies, and Facebook, and all that connecting they represent. In a word, she lived inside her connected generation, so it is hard to blame either her or her cellphone. She basically ended her last 60 days of life expressing herself with the one finger that could still move, and thanking the doctors who kept cutting on her brain (de-massing) down to the last finger. So she was not a quitter in any sense of the word.

But just because one cell might have given-up, it doesn’t mean we should overlook the objects and those connections that might have produced such a toxic environment and made a cell simply give up on evolution and go immortal.

What it does mean is that we have to observe the narrative from a distance and the magnitude of the narrative is by distance square. In other words, that distance our friend had to travel in battling cancer is very hard to remember, because, I, for one, think about that little girl everyday, and remaining positive is still good medicine.

Still,  that movie did produce a powerful image as the “mahdi” Lucy sees no future and becomes immortal. What’s that mean? Is the mahdi a form of cancer, or vice versa?

Conservative donor Koch urges end to ‘corporate cronyism’

DANA POINT, Calif. (AP) — Billionaire industrialist and conservative political donor Charles Koch welcomed a group of roughly 450 like-minded fundraisers to one of his twice-annual conferences Saturday by challenging them to advocate for ending “corporate cronyism” – even if those policies help their businesses.

Ha! Well sure, end corporate cronyism, when political cronyism has more return on the dollar.

In other words, why continue to hire like-minded individuals, when you can crush them with those you have legally bought within the Constitutional structure.

Once inside the boundaries of the US Constitution, those bought can include everyone within the structure of the US Constitution. By dropping cronyism you can gain 3 branches of government. There is definitely more bang for your bucks when you buy those within the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the US Constitution.

I don’t think anyone can accuse the Koch brothers of thinking small. The people they need to advance their Conservative agenda are only cronys if you have to hire them instead of buying them, and the Koch brother are willing to put their money where their mouths are, i.e. around the structure of the US Constitution. :)

via Conservative donor Koch urges end to ‘corporate cronyism’ – Yahoo News.

A Good Business Model Builds Barriers Not Fences

People power, Russia style: Small-town lessons about Russian democracy – Yahoo News

“The local amber operators live in the Baltiysk area, they know the place and the people, and in a variety of ways they take the local population’s interests and needs into account. They ran the district council, but nobody claims they were doing a bad job of it,” says Vladimir Abramov, an independent political expert. “They were mostly members of United Russia and big supporters of Putin.”

So the businessmen put the military structure (which had basically dissolved) to work manufacturing a product positioned in the world’s market, and Putin’s culture followed those businessmen back to their town and voted. It voted to make a decision, but not to change a position. In other words, they are still with Putin and the system seems to be working.

But did the businessmen create barriers that controls the velocity between those in the town and those in the global market, or did they try to build a fence around the town and whose gate only opens to the few?

For me a gate, which is what every good fence needs, is no good unless it’s there as an ornament. Those in the know (know how to open gates) seem to build close to the gate, and, in a way, those building close to the gate are in charge of the structure. I am just saying, I think those living close to the gate can become barriers too easily jumped over and too limiting in letting the few move around the barrier that represents, in this case, those voting. On the other hand, the town is dealing with a natural resource similar to oil, so maybe a closed system is not too bad, as long as the gate is well guarded. As we have seen in the Ukraine, if those guarding the gate are weak, the system doesn’t last long.

If including the military culture within a Capitalistic system creates fences or barriers, I don’t know the answer. The system inside the Russian town maybe Communistic or not, but the financial advantage in the world goes (so far) to the Capitalists.

But this business model the Russian businessmen of the town used is very similar in structure as what the Chinese used in Pakistan. In the Chinese system it seemed to be a winning strategy, but since I last looked, I don’t know if the Chinese model built barriers or fences.

In the Chinese model, they hired all ex-military higher-ups to run their manufacturing and the Chinese kept their economy going by keeping their people working. The business model had, what is called, a Cheap Trick. A Cheap Trick is basically a structure-building narrative with an advantage. The advantage in this case was that the military leaders took charge of the Chinese (I am thinking mostly Chinese workers) manufacturing facilities after serving in the Pakistani military as generals. Normally such a thing would raise some eyebrows with thoughts of nationalizing the manufacturing in Pakistan.

But the move in hiring these ex-generals were thought to be on the up and up. There was no pretext to hide this fact locally, nationally, and globally, and the global Capitalist responded favorably.

Perhaps in the successful Chinese model some events could give us clues as to what kind of structure we are dealing with inside the model’s environment. Maybe one event,  The Red Mosque Massacre, could show us either barrier or fence building.

After the inhabitants of The Red Mosque made a violent attack on a Chinese massage parlor (Who knew massage parlors were even available in Pakistan?), the Pakistan Government responded to the Chinese request, to protect Chinese citizens, by making the inhabitants of the mosque, who were mostly the women who perpetrated the attack on the massage parlor, a target to be massacred.

So in that instant, there was mostly fence building going on, as the Pakistani Army, in effect, isolate the Chinese from the people inside the mosque and surrounding environment.

On the other hand, as the article points out, nobody seems to be jumping over the Putin barrier, so maybe the Town’s model will be just as successful, as that used by the Chinese in Pakistan, but at a smaller magnitude per event.

via People power, Russia style: Small-town lessons about Russian democracy – Yahoo News.

Social Business: More Than Just A Definition Or Buzzword

I don’t like to argue definitions and I certainly don’t like to spit out buzzwords just to sound cool (well, sometimes I do). It’s a waste of time, especially when you only have 140 characters to make a point. So if it’s social business, social enterprise, social organization, social this or that, it doesn’t really matter. What does matter is what comes out of a business when organizations (employees at all levels) begin to change they way the communicate, lead, behave and work. When I think about various projects that I have worked on both on the agency side, as well as when I worked for the enterprise, I realize that social business enables better business practices.

via Social Business: More Than Just A Definition Or Buzzword.

OK, it’s more that just a definition, but it would have helped if the author had defined Social Business. I am kind of an idiot, so getting into a conversation late, is a little confusing for me. Later he does define Social Business:

Michael Brito is a Senior Vice President of Social Business Planning at Edelman Digital. He helps his clients transform their organizations to be more open, collaborative and socially proficient; with the end result of creating shared value with employees, partners and customers. 

Social Business is business’s sharing the value (if not profit) with its employees, partners and customers. Now that is something I haven’t thought about before, and I am glad to join in the conversation.

A brand has a value, and social business is the sharing of that value through collaboration, good enough!

While profit-sharing was a way of controlling the employees, by enabling self-control, Social Business pulls people into the business by sharing the force of command of the enterprise.

The outcome, like profit-sharing’s self-control, will be self-command.

As the command and control, of an operation, builds the structure of the business model, Social Business works inside the vertical component of that model, instead of profit-sharing’s horizontal position.

As a consumer economy is mostly vertical, Social Business has the potential (or is the potential) of transforming the economy of the U.S.A., through its use of force instead of the velocity used in the horizontal control of the work force.

As with most things in the virtual world, business is several years behind what is happening in the present. By the time Social Business reaches…well business, work-a-rounds will be in place, so, like profit sharing, it will be mostly lip-service to an uniformed public, and the command, like the control, will mostly go to those at the top of the organization.

Where, I might add, command has always  been.

Pro-democracy army officer joins Chinese military top brass

“‘The secret of the United States’ success is neither due to Wall Street nor Silicon Valley, but its long-surviving rule of law and the system behind it. A bad system makes a good person behave badly, while a good system makes a bad person behave well. Democracy is the most urgent thing; without it there can be no sustainable growth.’”

via Pro-democracy army officer joins Chinese military top brass « China Daily Mail.

So China just needs to see how Wall Street and Silicon Valley are acting good (all wealth going towards the center centralized 1%), and, like cell phones vs land-lines, jump a technology generation and build their own form of Democracy which gives 100% of control to the 99% voters.

Less than 25% will vote anyway (mostly against their own interest) and the 1% at the center will write the laws, so its not like the central committee will lose any power.

First Drucker Now Gamers?

Twitter / @larrydunbar/ooda.

I have read some of the report Michael Gerald Moore is outlining in his tweets here. It could be that Japan has found a way to harness the power (OODA loop) of the Next Generation Gamers.

Gamers are deep rooted experts that have little culture, but know how to tear down structure until it’s theirs. Gamers are good a learning the rules of the game and taking advantage of the rules to the dis-advantage of the designer of the game, until they own the game more than the designer.

In this case, it is the customer’s game, and corporate culture be damned, and the gamers play to win.

I could be wrong, but I think managers at Toyota are giving these people (Gamers) time to learn the rules, before crossing the gap between Decision and Action. Perhaps in another way, Toyota is py-passing orientation and pouncing between Observation and Decision, because Orientation is where much of the culture forms.

These Gamers would not be as suseptiable to integration of Toyota’s corporate culture and freer of bias, but they would eventually “own” the game.

I think there is more going on here, or I should say there at Toyota, but I have been wrong before, at least not mostly right.

Of course if I am mostly right, this could mean a big break for Japan, and a possible bounce back to number two, depending on if and where they are going with the meme.

Chart of the day: Why GM and SAIC naturally decided to pair up

Pretty obvious, actually.

Far short of merger, but the same logic holds:  you are weak where I am strong and vice versa.  Why not ally and crush all opposition on global basis.

This would-be globally integrated enterprise as a preview of globalization’s coming attractions.

From an Economist story on Chinese carmakers.

via Thomas P.M. Barnett’s Globlogization – Blog – Chart of the day: Why GM and SAIC naturally decided to pair up.

What Tom is describing is called a  “Cheap Trick” (Tempo, Venkatesh Rao).

Cheap Trick: In the Double Freytag model, the moment when a key insight turns around the trajectory of increasing entropy in a deep story. A cheap trick follows the exploration phase. The notion of cheap trick is essentially identical to Clausewitz’ notion of coup d’oeil (strike of the eye). Cheap tricks provide elegant, organizing insights that allow a decision-maker to make temporary and local sense of a high-entropy mental model. Cheap tricks also provide a window of opportunity for high-leverage decision-making.

The cheap trick in the deep story between GM and the Chinese corporation is defined in these words: “…you are weak where I am strong and vice versa.” In the exploration of the automobile market in both economies (east and west) have become so complex and the increase in what is not known is so great that the relationships in the narrative within the market has begun to spike into a Cheap Trick, to release both complexity and that what is not known.

A Cheap Trick is strategy, and in Tom’s example, the way (logic, of  the strategy) is defined in the words, “Why not ally and crush all opposition on a global basis.”

A cheap trick is strategy, but not the final strategy, so what is known about this Cheap Trick is that it is flawed. As Venkatesh says on page 77 in his book Tempo, “Every such insight is flawed, since it is based on excluding some part of reality as noise.”

What GM is excluding from some part of reality as noise is the fact that China is monopolizing the market around a benevolent leadership that is centralized. The reality is that the east (China) moves to a different tempo than the west (USA).

While the cheap trick and the logic behind it might be the same, GM and China (if one can distingush one as western and the other eastern anymore) have completely different Liminal Passages.

With different liminal passages, but with a need to achieve the same tempo (if harmony is desired between the east and west) the liminal passages have to merge. To merge the liminal passages, the separation event need to need to happen at a time that gives retrospection a chance to reach the same level in the deep story.

Once the same level has been reached in the deep story, the relationship between the east and west can grow deep together, if not close. Otherwise the east and west need to orient themselves within the same OODA loop, which is not easy if the relationship is not close in mind nor deep in heart.

The centralization of an authoritarian benevolent leadership that is represented in the phrase: “Why not ally and crush all opposition on a global basis” seems to be what is dividing most of the customers in the American market, and what both sides divided seem to not want.

The Tea Party (TP) and Occupy Wall Street (OWS) both seem to agree we need less centralization and neither are acting in a benevolent manner. While most Americans are not either TP nor OWS, the logic that binds these two is distintive American, i.e. they want freedom to act and freedom to decide.

It may prove hard to sell cars in such a divided market that is together on this one issue, the decentralization of the market into one deep passage that benefits only themselves.

It could be that the Cheap Trick that GM and China are using isn’t flawed in its logic, it is flawed in the end that both GM and China are equally moving towards, as they combine the means (resources) to that end.

As we are living within the “valley” of that Cheap Trick (we are obviously past the “sense making” of that trick) it may be that GM’s decision to centralize into one monopoly to rule the market together with a  benevolent China, will give the US customers cars that we need (cars that will not destroy the economies of the world) instead of what we want (cars that give us freedom).

However, giving us choices only of what we need has never worked out that well in America. It is going to be hard for GM and China to build cars China needs and the US wants, when considering the resources (means) used.