What I realized while having a discussion on this very topic was that personal branding can—and indeed must—be seen from a larger framework. This larger framework is inspired by the language of author Ken Wilber’s “big three perspectives”, the subjective, inter-subjective, and objective. Each perspective offers a different way (or angle) of viewing a particular phenomonon, in this case of “living the good life.” This model, I believe, helps us make better sense of personal branding in relationship to some other real forces in our life.

Authenticity, Popularity, & Brand

Personal branding deals almost exclusively with symbols, design, and slightly removed perception—that is to say with objective perceptions of individuals. Activists like Al Gore, artists like Madonna, and politicians like Barack Obama have strong personal brands. What’s interesting is that each of these people are symbols, more than people, and personal branding works at the level of symbology. Its aim is to turn one into a symbol, a symbol that is clearly portraying something in such a way that would have others attracted to it (or in some cases repelled). When one is working on their brand, they try and find ways to design a particular symbol of themselves that they wish to present to the world, and that symbol is to be perceived, in many cases, by folks that don’t even have a relationship to them. At least initially…

Popularity is another dimension of this puzzle, this puzzle of being and presenting oneself in the world. Popularity is an inherently inter-subjective perception, one that takes advantage of symbol but often has more to do with relationships. When you hear someone speak, have a conversation with someone, or experience something they’ve created you get a better sense of who that person is, and more importantly how you relate to them. Do you disagree with them? Do you find that they are easily likable? Do you appreciate some skill that they possess? When we relate to someone all of these things are decided almost immediately, and about the only thing that can change our mind on these viewpoints are the opinions of those closest to us. As you can see these two dimensions are almost inextricably intertwined, but I would argue that they should be distinguished as there are many examples of historic figures who come down to us almost exclusively as symbols, but who we then enter relationship with. Or vice versa, there are people we meet who we immediately like but whose branding we may have very little experience with.

This brings us to a sometimes over-looked dimension of living the good life, and that is the subjective dimension—of how one experiences themselves. Words such as passion, confidence, and authenticity come to mind when I reflect on this facet of living as a human being. Religious figures like Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and the Buddha immediately come to mind as examples of people who were powerful symbols, and who by today’s standards would probably be considered branding experts. The odd thing about them however, is that none of them had a particularly strong intention to become popular, but rather were following a unique passion or calling. We obviously can’t know their subjective experiences, but we can deduce that this internal dimension of their lives were of prime importance, as was their purpose.

Harmonizing

What I realized, after seeing these different dimensions of living the good life, is that each can be developed somewhat separately, but if they are out of balance in severe ways then one is missing out on building a truly gift-worthy brand as well as living a meaningful life.

Most criticisms of branding, I think are rightfully criticisms not of the techniques of getting oneself out there in ways where others can hear and digest their message, but are rather criticisms of using techniques or methods to try and popularize something that is vapid and devoid of true meaning. Without the subjective dimension then you have a flat and robotic attempt to share something that is superficial at best. Those who brand themselves only with financial gain in mind, but have nothing of true value to offer, come to mind as being severely out of balance in this regard.

That being said I don’t think it’s also unreasonable to question those folks who have a deep understanding of a particular field or fields of human knowledge and experience but do not consciously find ways to share it, and thus enhance other’s lives. Taken to extremes this can be the epitome of selfishness or foolishness. But when we recognize someone who has done both, who has become an authentic master, is deeply passionate about what they do, and has also found ways to brand themselves so that they can get their message out their appropriately, you see the emergence of deeply admired and generous folks.

So when we are seeking to live the good life and share it with others, all of these perspectives are important, all of these approaches valuable, but without a proper harmonization between them we either be hiding our gifts from the world or throwing out more useless crap into an atmosphere of already stifling mediocrity.

Toward the beginning of the book Beck and Cowan use a metaphorical narrative, where they are traveling around the world asking different people the question, “What is life all about?”. They use the people, their surroundings (i.e. their context), and their answers as ways of highlighting the different vMEMEs, or levels of individual and social development, that exist. I found the last person’s response, who was supposed to represent the “yellow” or Flex-Flow stage particularly interesting. He is a park ranger, in an African game reserve, and when asked the question he responds:

Well, I’ve given that some thought and don’t have anything spectacular to offer—but as I see it, I get a great deal of personal satisfaction out of working here to reclaim and preserve our natural habitat. So I guess my answer should be that I believe we should celebrate and respect life as it is. Even more than that, I think we should seek to understand how everything relates to everything else, and how nature has its own tempo and flow of which we are only a small part.¹

Three things stood out to me when reading his description. One is that the ranger is fairly humble and grounded about what he is doing and why he’s doing it. The why includes both his personal satisfaction and the good generated by the work he does. Secondly, he emphasizes the need to understand the relationships and patterns of all things. The need to understand and see these relationships, from a meta-viewpoint (of everything), is quite interesting and corresponds strongly to Robert Kegan’s descriptions of the 5th order of consciousness. Lastly, and most interestingly at the moment, is his emphasis on respecting “life as it is” and seeing that “we are only a small part” of nature which “has its own tempo and flow”. This seems largely to express what I described as an integrated sense of responsibility or what I’ve been terming cosmic responsibility. Notice the similarities between the fictional character’s description of his place in nature and how I described integrated responsibility at the end of my post on the subject:

When we open fully to the larger context in which life is happening, that isn’t solely reducible to my experience or my desires, then a greater level of surrender & happiness can result. The happiness isn’t one borne from getting what we want, but rather from seeing how things really are.

I feel more convinced now that “integrated responsibility” is how one expresses their individual role in the life—which is one part of the answer to what life is about—from what these authors call the yellow (”integrative”) stage of development.

Also, check out the recent interviews we did on the Conscious Business show with Don Beck on his work and it’s application to business. Listening to him speak is what finally encouraged me to buy his book and go into his work more deeply. I’m glad I did.

1. Spiral Dynamics, pg. 37

Thesis: The prajna paramita goes beyond earlier understandings of Buddhist teachings by pointing out that even the three characteristics of experiences are a conceptual overlay, and don’t in and of themselves lead to enlightenment. Seeing beyond the three characteristics, and abandoning conceptual models of reality, we are able to rest with naked freedom in the truth of this very moment. Furthermore, positing that dharmas are real in some ultimate way, is missing the point.

Antithesis: The three characteristics are a valid way to lead directly into deep insight into the nature of reality and directly to enlightenment. They become more and more subtle as enlightenment unfolds, but are a completely valid way of tuning into the empty nature of things. No-self and emptiness are two sides of the same coin.

Synthesis: The teachings on the Abhidharma are limited in that dharmas were considered to be self-existent. This added an extra layer of conceptuality that could then be clung to as absolutely true. The teachings on emptiness, as is evidenced in the Heart Sutra, were an attempt to counter-balance this prevailing trend. Buddha Nature could then be seen as a reaction to the teachings on emptiness and there tendency to err toward nihilism. This dialectic over time is an evolutionary process in which the tradition is always returning to a balance between opposities, sometimes using extreme teachings to bring it to one side or the other. In the end all views are expedients which can either be understood as contradictory ideologies (one right and one wrong) or as a challenge to the views that obscure the awakened mind. This evolutionary perspective holds the conversation in a “deep time” perspective and is able to integrate both the cultural changes and critiques as well as the differences in actual realization.

Another way of looking at it is to see Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana not as correlating to actual schools, but as a deepening understanding of the spiritual path. The Hinayana represents the important teachings on ethics, discipline, and meditation as the path to purification. The Mahayana is pointing directly to ever-present empty nature of things. The Vajrayana goes beyond that to show that all life is sacred. As Jack Kornfield said in response to a question about these three understandings, “all of these ways of understanding the can be seen in all of the different Buddhist traditions.” He pointed out that various teachers would emphasize these things differently, with his first teacher Ajahn Chah being a perfect example of a Theravada teacher emphasizing a Vajrayana view point.

In Part 1 I described the difference between victimhood and full responsibility, and how one can move toward full responsibility. In this post I wanted to push the envelope a little, and describe territory that I believe most self-development literature is unaware of (or even worse confuses with victimhood). This is the living understanding of integrated responsibility or what one could call cosmic responsibility.

The Synthesis of Opposites: Living in Complete Accord with the Universe

Integrated responsibility is the bringing together of the key insights from the previous two stages of responsibility. From victimhood we see the key insight that the world is a complex and sometimes uncontrollable force. From full responsibility we see that we (or the other) have a much larger part to play then we once thought, and that intention and surrender are deeply powerful forces with regards to causality.

The difference in integrated responsibility is that we don’t conceive of our “personhood” in the same way as we did prior (where the sense of a solid separate self was maintained as part of the equation). We also begin to see the deeply systemic nature of causality, and the limits of full responsibility.

Going Beyond the Self

For either victimhood or full responsibility to be maintained we have to think that there is a “self” that is at the receiving end of causality. That self is often experienced and understood as radically separate from the rest of causality (though becoming less so in full responsibility). When one begins to see through this sense of self, as ultimately existing, then the focus on self, and indeed on our always getting what we want starts to diminish radically. At this point one switches away from self-actualization, which characterizes most of the self-development literature, and moves toward self-transcendence, which tends to involve contemplation and introspection.

Systemic Thinking is Key

Another thing that can bring about the awareness of integrated responsibility is a kind of systemic thinking, in which one begins to see how systems operate, where their leverage points are and what the limitations in systemic change are. A great example of this type of thinking can be seen in “systems theory” with such thinkers as Gregory Bateson, Fritjof Capra, Ken Wilber, and Peter Senge. Our personal influence on changing things is seen in the light of larger systemic dynamics that are at play.

To get a better sense of how this might play out, think about the weather system. You may want it to rain, may do a rain dance, etc. but how much does your personal intention play in the larger confluence of wind, air pressure, humidity and competing weather patterns. Probably not that much!

Another thing I’ll mention about integrated responsibility is that one begins to have the flexibility to notice how and why their personal intentions have the results (or lack of results) that they do. One begins to appreciate the strong power of habits and forces in the universe, and develops a certain level of surrender to them. They also become more able to leverage these systems in amazing ways and can become phenomenal masters at shifting whole systems. In many ways these are the alchemists, magicians, and agents of change!

Here are some tips for how, if you are already operating from a perspective of full-responsibility, to move toward integrated responsibility:

Tips for Becoming an Agent of Change:

• Have a regular contemplative practice – Contemplative practices, from any of the wisdom traditions, provide insight into a deeper, wider perspective that is broader then your “self”. This naturally leads to integrated responsibility.
• Study thinkers who think systemically – Studying the great philosophers, thinkers, and theorists who have put forth material in a systemic way is a sure way to be challenged to think this way, and start moving into a sense of integrated responsibility. I mentioned a few earlier in the post, but there are many.
• Think about things from multiple angles – Challenge yourself to see the things that happen in your life from multiple viewpoints. For example, I recently heard that my wife and I were receiving (along with many other people in the U.S.) a rebate check for $1,200. I can view that as simply chance, can see that because we have been on top of our taxes we are receiving it, can view it as a the universe doing me a favor, can see it as a larger governmental response to the current recession, etc. There are so many ways to consider the things that happen in our lives, and by doing so we become disillusioned with any simple answers or perspectives.

When we open fully to the larger context in which life is happening, that isn’t solely reducible to my experience or my desires, then a greater level of surrender & happiness can result. The happiness isn’t one borne from getting what we want, but rather from seeing how things really are.

I’ve mapped out (pun intended) the outline of the paper, gathered all my research material, and started gathering the relevant quotes, etc. It’ll probably take a few months to write it and then have it edited, but I think I’ll enjoy the process.

I’ll probably share little bits and pieces as I go along here on Numinous Nonsense, cause almost all of the hundred people who might be interested in this paper, are probably reading this blog!

Although Ken doesn’t seem to have a very good grasp of Kurzweil’s work or of technology in general (hey, it isn’t his strong suite … I know, I worked with him on technology issues for a couple of years), he does make some very good points about the singularity:

1. What’s valuable in a world of information is the editing of that information. The NY Times Editor said, “You pay us for what we don’t print.”
2. Levels of interpretations are happening with information, so even if we have instantaneous access to all the world’s information (which by the way, has already happened) there are still issues of interpretation and that happens at multiple levels.
3. One downside of the information age is that the level of discourse is at a really low intellectual level. People with a lot of extra time are the most dominant voices. Shit, am I one of those folks?

It was exactly one year ago today that I and nine others resigned from Integral Institute in a blaze of glory which would come to be known as “Black Tuesday”. I had been working up until then as a graphic designer for the non-profit organization, which was founded by philosopher Ken Wilber in the late 90s to develop an inclusive, post-postmodern approach to the problems of the world. I had been reading his books since 1999, and was hired to work full-time in November 2003.

I-I was definitely a mixed bag, but I still appreciate the time I spent working there, and am very grateful for the relationships I cultivated there that continue to this day.

nascent - Beginning to exist or develop; Coming into existence; emerging

The Nascent Edge is my attempt at creating a more lively expression to supplant the common common phrases like, “leading edge”, “cutting edge”, “bleeding edge” or even “frothy edge”. While I can’t fully take the credit for this phrase (it does have a couple pages of results on Google), it’s the first time I’ve personally heard it used.

The reason I started using it is because when one is trying to talk about something that is at the very edge of some new trend or is radically new, one generally has to resort to phrases that have been existence for a while, “like cutting edge”. The phrases, because they are relatively old, end up being antithetical to what they are actually pointing to, and it leads to a kind of semantic embarrassment. The other option, which I poked fun at last week, is to play with phrases in a way where you try and have them point beyond themselves using post- and trans- and then using the word a couple of times (ex. “She is a post-feminist feminist”). This seems kind of awkward to me, so instead I’m trying to invent and adopt expressions that are already well understood but are doing the same thing.

Why am I doing this? Why do I care? Well, in part because I have a passion and interest in language (and just get kind of geeky with words), but also because the language that we use is the main means by which we point to, or communicate our values, ideas, and perspectives. It’s down-right important. Words can be used to manipulate as well as to inspire, and that’s why I try to do my best to stay at the nascent edge of conscious communication. Care to join me?

So as not to get left behind I’ve adopted this interesting semantic modifier, and am now going to be referring to myself as a trans-Vincent Vincent. I’m a Vincent that is described by a transcendence of the Vincent-ness which originally defined me. Get it? I’ve gone meta on myself.

So next time you want to meditate, don’t. Do post-meditation meditation. Next time you want to work with someone on a project, do everyone one a favor and go meta on it. Post-collaboration collaboration, see? And next time you find a theory that tries and makes sense of everything, please put these meta-theorists out of their misery, and go trans-”enter theory name here” “enter theory name here” on it. Everyone one will be happier, I promise.

Dorothy’s journey wasn’t simply a case of following directions. According to him, Dorothy was transcending and evolving through spiral dynamics, a powerful model and predictive theory of human development and cultural evolution.

Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but then again it’s pretty easy to begin to see everything in terms of the frame that one is most involved with at the time, and that goes for integral thinkers as well.