A Foundation For Life Long Learning

No man or woman, past or present, has fully explored the capacities of the brain. Leonardo Da Vinci is one of the most inspiring examples for those of us wishing to explore our fullest capacities. We are all gifted with an almost unlimited potential for learning and creativity. Michael Gelb has made an attempt to codify the principles implicit in Leonardo's work so that they can be used by others (us).

The Seven Da Vincian Principles
1. Curiosity (Curiosita) - An insatiably curious approach to life and an unrelenting quest for continuous learning.

2. Demonstration (Dimonstrazione) - A commitment to test knowledge through experience, persistence, and willingness to learn from mistakes.

3. Sensation (Sensazione) - The continual refinement of the senses, especially sight, as the means to enliven experience.

4. Smoke (Sfumato) - Becoming open to the unknown. A willingness to embrace ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty.

5. Art and Science (Arte/Scienza) - Whole-Brain thinking. The development of the balance between science and art, logic and imagination.

6. The Body (Corporalita) - The cultivation of grace, ambidexterity, fitness, and poise. Balancing the body and mind.

7. Connection (Connessione) - A recognition of and appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things and phenomena. Systems thinking.

I have a firm belief that there is a native capacity for reason in every man/woman. I also believe that these principles are a solid foundation in our life long attempts to acquire wisdom. The following paragraphs are my interpretations of these principles, and how we can use them to uncover our "hidden" abilities, sharpen our senses, and liberate our unique intelligences.



1. Curiosita - All of us have an innate sense of curiosity. As children, we are compelled to search for answers to things we do not understand. A child understands that questions are fundamental in the development of his knowledge base. Individuals who constantly seek to expand their base of knowledge, are open to the concept that conventional ways of doing things can be modified.

2. Dimonstrazione - We must have a willingness to learn from our mistakes. A mistake is a synonym for experience, and experience is the best teacher. Our experiences provide a unique kind of knowledge. Some types of knowledge are indisputable, e.g., pecans grow on trees. The combination of knowledge with experience provides a means for people to come up with hypotheses that may or may not be accurate when they test them out. Children are capable of coming up with their own hypotheses based on their limited experiences in the world. Consider the following example: As a 5 year old, my aunt was riding in the car with her parents. They passed by a large cemetery, which she observed very carefully. She turned to her mother and said, "Mommy, when people die do they come back as flowers?" Clearly, she came to this conclusion based on her knowledge that when people die, they get buried in the ground, and that when you plant flowers you bury seeds in the ground too. Therefore, since this cemetery was full of beautiful flowers, in her mind when people die, they must come back as flowers (deductive reasoning). As adults we have a much greater amount of knowledge and experience than a young child. What happens to many of us is that we stop developing our own hypotheses and are content to just do things or think things the way everyone else does simply because its so much easier.

3. Sensazione - We perceive our experiences through the senses. Leonardo Da Vinci says, the average human "looks without seeing, listens without hearing, touches without feeling, eats without tasting, moves without physical awareness, inhales without awareness of odor or fragrance, and talks without thinking." Continuous sensory development will enhance our experiences, in turn allowing us to fully grasp the totality of the lesson(s) being taught.

4. Sfumato - In our quest for knowledge we will face the unknown. Young children are not ready to deal with the paradoxes of life. As we become older we become more comfortable with the idea that familiar things can be done in new and different ways. Sometimes we find out that the new way is better than what we thought had been ideal before. If we are willing to try things (open mindedness), we may be pleasantly surprised.

5. Arte/Scienza - Leonardo Da Vinci says that science and art are indivisible. He was not only a scientist who studied art, but also an artist who studied science. He was a "whole-brain" thinker. The left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex processes logical and analytical thinking, while the right hemisphere processes imaginative, big-picture thinking. Modern educational systems emphasize left-brain thinking and neglect the right hemisphere. The result is people who do well in school, but lack in creativity. People who are dominated by their right-brain are often ridiculed and categorized as "learning disabled". This approach fails to appreciate that an individual who is capable of using both their left and right hemispheres are the ones who are truly intelligent. The notion that individuals who are outstanding left-brain thinkers are the most intelligent on the planet is a narrow minded perspective.

6. Corporalita - Good physical health has positive effects on our attitudes and emotions. If the mind does not work, then the body does not. It works the same way in the reverse order. Sometimes instead of going to see a psychologist one should just eat a banana and some almonds.

7. Connessione - Leonardo Da Vinci never provided a table of contents, an outline, or an index for any of his writings. It seemed like his notes were written at random. He had a sense for connectedness. He didnt need to organize his notes because he saw how everything was related to one another. In one of his writings called "How to Make an Imaginary Animal Appear Real" he said, "if therefore you wish to make one of your imagined animals appear natural--let us suppose it to be a dragon--take for its head that of a mastiff or setter, for its eyes those of a cat, for its ears those of a porcupine, for its nose that of a greyhound, with the eyebrows of a lion, the temples of an old cock, and the neck of a water tortoise." So it is in life, you can take what has always been and use it in a way that was never done, and it may become more than what you had ever imagined.

The development of our minds seems to have fallen along the side of the road as our physical appearances have cruised ahead and taken the spot of focus in our lives. It is true that it is in the physical world that we are judged: our words, actions, and productions, however it is through the development of our minds--through the adaptation, evolution, and progression of our thoughts and mindsets--that we can incur those same physical manifestations of our inner beings. Until we break the paradigms that have held us captive, slaves to the sub-par standards of society that have undeservingly held the power in our interworking for far too long, we will never develop our minds to their greatest potential. By leaving yourself to fester apathetically in the same sanctuary of unchangingness in which you have reveled for so long in your own dilapidating intelligence, you are willingly choosing to be less than you could be: a fool's mission. The way to develop the mind is not adequately described in words, discourses, and theses; the true genius is in each one of us, showing us the way, guiding us to higher levels of thought, and molding us into higher-minded individuals. Be the change, or sit back and enjoy the "ride."

The book is available in our "Knowledge" section on the left side of our blog.

Ruben Harris
Adam T. Wamack (co-author)

Bibliography
Gelb, Michael J. How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Everyday. New York: Delacorte Press, 1998.

Read more...

The Root of All Evil: Self

It is fairly common to see in ourselves the flaws of human nature—the day to day imperfections that make us all individuals even if inherently fallible. However, it is much more difficult to admit to any further incorrectness. We often cast the blame onto others, or onto the situation, claiming the innocence of the victim and shouting “erroneous!” with our actions, demeanors, and words. Men who would succeed in taking responsibility for their own actions—actions that demonstrate that they are not perfect in becoming men—are becoming scarce. St. Catherine of Siena spoke of such pride as the father of sensual selfishness, which is the foundation of every evil, and described its effect as one would describe a poison. One would tend to agree with her after having taken a simple glance at our world’s history of civilization, but the corresponding undertones in the effect of selfishness upon one’s life (or one’s country) are often neglected or unknown. Of pride is born selfishness; of selfishness is born evil.

Pride blinds one to the inherent good that could be done. Pride administers equality neither in opportunity nor in recognition of achievement. It would take the focus always off of others and have it rather be placed on one’s self. It stands smugly beside itself not only in the presence of past accomplishments but mainly in the understanding and belief that the future holds in store only more praise and admiration for the individual.

Reveling in attention from all sides, pride is not a sincere sense of accomplishment; it is the self-righteous piety in the rightness and legitimacy of one’s actions, words, or productions accompanied with the admonition of anyone who thinks otherwise. Pride takes any action that may have once had good intentions and defiles it, twisting and manipulating the means to incur an end that will result in the highest amount of recognition of one’s self from others. Pride in one’s self—be it in production or action—and not in a collective goal achieved by many, poisons the mind with an addictive void of unfulfillment, of a desire for more.

It is through this incessant longing to maintain pride, to continue to be the best, to always wish to be revered by others, to ignore criticism and to understand nothing but the praise of one’s actions—it is through this lusting desire that one’s mind becomes turned inwards. It is through the unhealthy sense of superiority that one finds the pomp required to care more for one’s self than for any other thing; it is through pride that selfishness takes root. The one whose face is turned constantly inwards needs search no further for whom he most cares.

Selfishness believes in no one; it trusts no one fully. Its ugly head rises only to the opportunities of further recognition. Selfishness looks at all situations from the vantage point of its own betterment and complies vehemently with its characteristics: grandiose in appearance, conniving in advocacy, and pompous in action. Those who find themselves so full of pride that they search for it by any means necessary already have as their drive the characteristics defining selfishness. By searching this way, their focus is on any way to get and to take.

However, it is very possible to be selfish and not act upon one’s sentiments, therefore it cannot be selfishness alone that invokes evil—actions are the actual evils. Still, since the action is impossible without the sentiment, and the sentiment cannot exist with being a part of the same mind that chose to act, that sentiment by which actions are inspired, influenced, and provoked retains the responsibility of the action. One could easier say that love is not the reason why the enamored poet writes than to imply that sentiments are innocent as actions were only guilty. It is through choice and action that selfishness is made manifest—that selfishness really exists; but selfishness is still inherently culpable because it wrought the actions.

Selfishness does not incur unselfish actions. Even if the end result is benevolent, because of intention and motive, the act itself was selfish: filled with malicious ambitions. It is possible that selfishness will only affect the one who wields it, but the extreme majority of situations involving selfish actions are hurtful to others. Every evil can therefore be traced to selfishness. Murder, thievery, covetousness, greed, envy, wrath, manipulation, and a whole entourage of evils all spawn from the desires of self-preservation and self-admiration.

The blinding fury of selfish men has reeked havoc on civilization since the dawn of time. St. Catherine saw it as the son of pride and the father of all evil. It is evident that when pride, the father of selfishness, is married to malicious ambition, the mother of evil actions, a family of evil is created with the potency to destroy the greatest of achievements: be it the heart of another, or an entire civilization.

Read more...

Philosophy of History

From the beginning of historiography, a few major dilemmas have raged back and forth amongst the intellectual circles. Questions such as: is history an art—or is history a science; Is objectivity really possible, or are we forever trapped in the prison of our own privileged subjectivity, and if it is impossible to be reached, should it even be strived for? In my own personal philosophy, I see history as being an art largely influenced by science and paradoxically able to be studied objectively—yet only through our own subjectivity.

Science uses empirical data as a main source. In doing laboratory research scientists use clear-cut methodologies based on elements with unchangingly rigorous laws. Human beings on the other hand, are different. We have emotion and actions such as deceit, honor, or revenge. In other words we have motives. When a molecule of ozone comes into contact with an oxygen atom they combine to form two ordinary oxygen molecules (O + O3 —> O2 + O2) and thus, since the ozone molecule is gone, destroy the ozone layer. This is law; the oxygen atom has no motive or secondary agenda behind its actions. Science is based on law and formula to describe natural happenings. However, emotion and motive can change and therefore by definition cannot be based on laws or formulas. When humans, through combustion and the burning of coal and methane produce too many dirty oxygen molecules, they are destroying the ozone layer. Here we find motives—transportation, technology, civilization—behind the destruction. If one were to take a history of the ozone layer as a science, one would be only able to see its destruction scientifically on a chemical, atomic level, whereas if one were to look at it artistically, in the sense of using the knowledge of human reason, emotion, and motive to paint the picture instead of empirical data to dictate mathematical graphs, one would be able to see it as the effect of a civilization, industry, and technology.

Now, on the other hand, even though there is not a mathematical formula able to be placed on a civilization in history, with perhaps population, level of technology, and industry growth rate being different variables, that will tell us the precise percentage of destruction of the ozone layer, there is a helpful use for the empirical data that comes with such mathematics. Knowing the level of growth of a civilization and its industry is only possible on a macro scale, and on such a macro scale, civilizations have tended to follow similar paths. Hegel showed this in his “formula” of thesis—antithesis—synthesis. This is a formula, yet not a scientific one. It could be called an artistic formula. Therefore, while proving mathematical formulas and such empirical data as inaccurate if not mundanely synchronic, such data is useful to a diachronic history of a civilization. The artistic of history is its definition, while scientific is one of its useful tools: history is an art which is perfected with the use of scientific processes.

In the light of seeing history as a scientifically perfected art, we must decide if we are even able, or what could be far worse, allowed, to study history. We must decide if our looking at history will give us a skewed perspective through our privileged, subjective knowledge of the outcome, or if, by laying aside the cloak of subjectivity and donning that of objectivity, it is even possible—and if its not, we must decide if we should even look at it to begin with. Complete objectivity is, by definition of knowledge, impossible as we are looking back—as we already know that the outcome is us, here and now. As a result, the point of history is to see how and why we are the outcome; and what would have happened to us, as the end, if a different path had been taken along the way. For example, when the Roman Empire was fighting Carthage, we normally and subjectively look at it from the Roman’s perspective since we know that they in fact won the war and wrote the history about it. However, in our quest for Truth in history, we know that a war has two possible outcomes and winners, and we must therefore look at both outcomes to find motive in the initial war itself; we are in fact left with no other option but to be objective. To see the war from a Carthage point of view, and therefore discovering motive and tact, would mean to look at a part of history that did not in fact lead up to us and forces us to use objectivity. By in turn looking at the Roman’s in the same light, we can, through our knowledge of being subjective, can choose to be objective as we did with Carthage. History is using our subjectivity to choose to be objective; we are privileged in knowing the outcome of all history, and yet, with this knowledge, can choose to set this aside. With knowledge of the outcome we can choose to look at it in that light or to not.

Everything has a history: philosophical thought, science, geology, religion, politics, and even history, all have teleological lines which lead up to where they are presently. Not to say that such teleology was predestined, but simply: all topics of life have a specific history. Therefore, studying history is greater than studying any other subject. The level of thought is higher that of any other. I am proud to be such a student.

Adam T. Wamack--A Young Influence Read more...

Twibes: Follow The Leader

This article is based on Seth Godin's new book: Tribes. A tribe is a group of people connected to one another, connected to a leader, and connected to an idea. A group needs only two things to be a tribe: a shared interest, and a way to communicate. Tribes need leadership. Sometimes one person leads, and sometimes more. People want connection and growth and something new. People want change. Your leadership can provide that change. You can't have a tribe without a leader, and you cant have a leader without a tribe. Seth's definition of a tribe is strongly related to the new micro blogging platform, Twitter. Twitter is one of the ways to form a communication channel between the tribal leader and its followers. Through this means of communication you can create a movement. Your followers follow you because they have a shared interest or are connected to a common ideology. The leader gives its followers something to believe in. When your followers believe in your idea, they will evangelize it. Twitters method of evangelizing is through retweets, direct messages, etc. Twitter allows us to be change agents, and is what has inspired this article and the development of our new term: Twibes.

Twibe: A twibe is a group of people connected to one another, a leader, and a common ideology. They communicate through Twitter, are motivated by updates, and evangelize to others by becoming opinion leaders themselves.

Opinion Leader: An opinion leader, or buzz marketer, has extensive knowledge on a certain subject and lets other know he feels about it. People listen to what he has to say because he has gotten the influence and credibility needed for others to pay attention.

Twibal Leadership: Twitter is not updates on your life. It is ok to do it from time to time, but this is not a reality television show. A twibal leader begins by giving his followers something to believe in. Everything he does is related or inadvertently related to his and his followers goals. This does not mean eliminate the water cooler talk. There is value in water cooler talk. Water cooler talk is the very reason that we are more likely to hear about changes to the world at the proverbial water cooler (twitter) rather than straight from "the media" (tv, radio, etc.). My point is, do not get distracted and stay focused on your vision.

Interaction: As twibal leaders what should we be writing about? Being a twibal leader is all about developing a relationship with your followers. When they see that you put up an update, they need to get excited. Ask thoughtful questions. Do not judge one's wisdom by the answers given, but by the questions asked. Get links to other websites/books you're reading that you think your followers might be interested in. Do not just promote yourself. Get something that you think is worth retweeting to their own followers. That creates a win-win situation. Your followers are satisfied because they have interesting information to read about, and they are also given the opportunity to themselves become "twibal leaders" to their own followers. Direct messaging gives a personalized touch between you and your followers. Dont use it often. You want your followers to yearn for a DM. Show them that you care.

Silence: Absence makes the heart grow fonder. A delay in your tweeting gives room for your followers to respond to what you have to say. You do not want to annoy your followers. Strategically placed pauses are golden.

Hashtags: The power of a viral discussion. For example, we do "Book Review Fridays". I'll send out a tweet friday morning similar to "today is book review friday. what are you reading right now? tag it #breviewfri". A hashtag is the hash (#), followed by a word related to the discussion you are starting. Followers that respond to this discussion tag it with the same hashtag, etc. Hashtags are a good tool to use because there are many search engines (summize.com) and websites (hashtags.org) dedicated to them, and allow you to find out which ones are the most popular.

Private to Public: Whenever you are having a conversation through direct messages and you feel it is of interest to everyone, take it public. One of the key elements to be an effective twibal leader is inclusion. Nobody likes to be left out.

Media training: As a twibal leader some of the replies we give to our followers go public. When replying to your followers, try to include a bit of the message given to you at the beginning, along with your answer. This communication strategy has the potential to generate more conversations from other followers.

The beauty of a twibe is that it not only has unlimited potential for growth, but also that the hightened level of interconnectivity spawns only more growth: a leader sends a twit to all of his followers--followers who are leaders themselves. The strength of a tribe is in numbers; but the strength of a twibe is in potency. The influencialism of a twibe is the idea of its ability to speak to a few and influence many. Accordingly, a twibe follows survival of the fittest, yet not through strength; a twibe survives and thrives based on nothing less than merit. Corruption does not come into play; the power of a twibe is pure . . . or nonexistent. Take care to care and take your care with care. Don't be confused, leadership is gained through merit. It is an honor to be a follower of a great twibal leader because you simply obtain more information to pass to the followers of your own twibe.

Follow us @ twitter.com/redstarvip

Ruben Harris
Adam T. Wamack--A Young Influence (co-author)

Read more...

Stoicism: Logic Without Emotion

The austere characteristic of stoicism was to make Rome a better empire. Many believed it then in Rome, many have believed it in recent decades, and many believe in those same principles, now. The goal was for all of man to live with conquered passions and to use reason to guide one’s decisions; Stoicism’s principles could have saved a human Rome had they been adopted accurately. However, to speak austerely and objectively in unpassionate reflection of such principles, one sees the ironic truth that a human world in which Stoicism was rule, in which Plato’s philosopher king ruled, and in which the ideals of Marcus Aurelius were made manifest, would be strikingly inhuman.

Stoicism was the governing Roman philosophy, and yet, as it is with most idealistic notions, was never adopted into action by the general populous. One of the fundamental beliefs associated with Stoicism is that there is a common law, one that is unchanging for all men regardless as to their acceptance of Stoicism. So, according to this philosophy, one encounters that Stoicism, as are most if not all philosophies at the fundamental level, is really just a description of the preexisting. To study or to believe in Stoicism is to simply come to terms with and accept the already existing fact of this common law and governing reason; to then use this knowledge to control and conquer one’s self would be the incorporation of its practice. However, it is unrealistic to believe in the assimilation of a singular principle into an entire empire—to believe that every citizen will follow a single set moral principle and way of life. Yet unrealisticism is not enough of an excuse to forgo necessity, therefore we continue on to a deeper point.

The philosophy of Stoicism, the idea of using reason to understand the common law of nature in order to conquer the passions and judge correctly and unbiased, even so far as to cast judgment upon one’s self, is strikingly and yet inherently flawed in its own practice. When one uses such an unpassionate rule of the mind, one must look not only inward, but also at the very principle of Stoicism itself. Ironically, the flaw in Stoicism may be seen only from the view of a Stoic—from the vantage point of one already under a Stoic influence; one must don Stoicism to accurately analyze its principles.

Stoicism’s conquest of the passions and utilization of the common law through reason goes against our very nature as human. It is our passions that make us human—our passion that gives us strength and ambition to surge forward, often against innumerable odds. The wild uncontrolled passion of the lover, those emotions that drive him to do the insane, to throw his life into harms way all for the sake of gaining love, is very impassioned. The deep reservoir of feeling uncovered in a poet’s work that seems to ooze out of his heart and quill pen onto the paper that holds the content of his existence is certainly impassioned. The sailor who prepares his ship and sets sail time and time again to embark upon new discovery, physical or metaphysical, reveals the unchartered and choppy waters of a sea unconquered, of a sea which calls and beckons the daring to brave her waters, of a sea of passion. And although the lover may burn in the fires of the castle or in the fires of unrequite, he will still fight for love; although the poet may embitter and despair through the mysterious ironies he may behold, he will still write for truth; although the sailor may struggle in vain to climb to the top mast of his sinking ship which has been tossed and turned by the unhindered waves of the sea, he will still sail for freedom. They will all continue because it is in our passions that our greatest work is accomplished.

It is not through reason that love is understood—love unreasonably finds and chooses those who are most times unprepared and unexpecting. More accurately stated, it is through reason that passions are understood—but the passions are still present. It takes the combination of both unhindered passion and alienated reason to reach the moderate virtue of wisdom. Were reason followed unbridled, it would be as unbeneficial as if passions were followed unbridled—which would be worse, I do not know. The two polar extremes are neither helpful nor infinite. A life ruled by reason would be undoubtedly uplifting and inspiring but would lack the spices that give life fulfillment and enjoyment. “The True and the Good, wisdom and virtue, the general terms beyond which Stoicism cannot get, are therefore in a general way no doubt uplifting, but since they cannot in fact produce any expansion of the content, they soon become tedious” (Hegel, 200)*.

Stoicism has inherent flaws, truly, yet all human doctrine is imperfect by nature of human creation. Yet, even apart from the imperfections bound to be present, the lifestyle of the Stoic, to me, still seems to be lacking; the life-view exemplified by Stoicism would be a purely human standpoint that remains out of touch with a deeper experiential basis (Kierkegaard, 27-34)**.

“Beauty can be defined, yet only understood through interaction—through actually seeing that which is truly beautiful. In the same way, life may be defined through reason, yet it is only understood through passionate interaction with its inner workings and experiences.”
T. Hoffman

* Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Phenomenology of Spirit. 1807.
** Kierkegaard, Soren. From the Papers of One Still Living. 1838.
Read more...

The Seven Blunders Of The World

The Seven Blunders of the World is a list that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi gave to his grandson Arun Gandhi, written on a piece of paper, on their final day together, not too long before his assassination (1948).

1. wealth without work
2. pleasure without conscience
3. knowledge without character
4. commerce without morality
5. science without humanity
6. worship without sacrifice
7. politics without principle

This list was a result of Gandhi's search for the roots of violence. He called these acts of passive violence (greed, selfishness, hate, anger, etc.). Acts of passive violence generate anger in the victim, and since the victim has not learned how to use anger positively, the victim abuses anger and generates physical violence. He said that preventing these (blunders) is the best way to prevent oneself or one's society from reaching a point of violence.

These writings inspired us to write our own list of improprieties.

The Seven Blunders Of The World (our version)



1. words without thought
2. music without meaning
3. logic without emotion
4. religion without faith
5. family without unity
6. children without morals
7. wisdom without virtue

This list grew from our search for the roots of violence. We believe that preventing these (blunders) is a good way to prevent oneself or one's society from reaching a point of violence.

Read more...