Ed Dowding

I’ve just been revising a contract we use for websites we build and so having to deal with one of my pet annoyances. I don’t like contracts. They’re boring, stop me doing the fun stuff of work, and seem to spend more time building walls than bridges. The point is that you’re working together, surely?

Of course I know why we have contracts. It’s for when it something goes wrong, or there’s something new, or one party gets over-excited and asks for more than was understood at the beginning, and so on.

But they always seem to be written in such a way that doesn’t embrace and work with the fact that you’re working together for mutual benefit. There may be differences along the way, but the key point is that you’re both going to be better of working together.

(I suspect mankind may be in a more civil position had Darwin highlighted symbiosis and cooperation as equally vital aspects of life, and given us a working vocabulary with which to discuss and use the concepts, as well as bequeathing us the contagious, yet brutal, meme of “survival of the fittest”.)

Maybe I’m just contractophobic, and others have a far more civil and welcoming approach to contracts, but I’d like a contract which:

• Makes it clear we’re starting from a position of trust
• Deliberate does not try to pre-empt all eventualities (and is therefore shorter)
• Provides a framework for getting things back on track
• Provides a framework for wrapping things up as amicably as possible, should it come to that stage
• Is written in clear, straightforward, English of largely Anglo-Saxon (not Latin) origin
• Uses a lexicon of cooperation and advancement in place of limitations and thresholds

I’ll drop the Creative Commons folk a line to see if they have any ideas. Meantime, please comment!

A question from The Blended Lifestyle

if we move away from a materialistic life, what is the name for the kind of life we enter into? I don’t like ‘de-materialised’ (so what is it then?), ’simple’ (it’s not simple), or ’spiritual’ (problematic term). So I am missing a word. Do you have any ideas?

There’s huge power in a name. I think I’ve written about the power of the “space race” before, and it’s obvious that words like “frankenfoods” and “credit crunch” can both act as a convenient shorthand, but also shape the debate. Names that allow us to aspire to greatness tap in to that which is the very best in humanity. Who wouldn’t want to agree with “Yes, we can!”?

Orwell has a defining essay on this topic: Politics and the English Language

Anyway, I spent a few hours in the garden yesterday, and had time to ponder this. So here’s the answer I posted:

Sustainable: quite obvious and somewhat tainted by the idea that it might imply “less” and therefore “less good”.

Transition: meh.. great for towns and to talk of the process, but says little about the quality of the goal.

Ascetic: technically more accurate (‘This is to be understood not as an eschewal of the enjoyment of life but a recognition that spiritual and religious goals are impeded by such indulgence’), but again hints at emaciated preachers beating themselves with sticks beneath a cold hose.

Gardeners: careful cultivation, working harmoniously with natural systems, long term thinking… this has a lot to appeal; and also is going to be an accurate description for most who choose this route.

Extraordinary: literal, and makes it sound more appealing. Hearing envious talk of “your extraordinary life” is something which can’t help but stir humble pride.

Sophisticated: from sophos (wisdom). to refine, make more complex, make more worldly-wise and less naive.

Philosopher: lover of wisdom (and all the things above). The philosophic life… has a nice ring, possibly too pretentious. Also the people best suited to determine the direction of a nation, according to Plato.  (Have you ever noticed how people who develop hierarchies find themselves at the top? Including myself in this example, thinking that ‘gardeners’ sounds apposite, whilst out gardening…)

http://www.good.is/post/transparency-good-s-most-popular-infographics-of-2009/

How we consider our position in time effects our outlook on life. Much like our use of language, really. More confirmation that the world is what we perceive it to be, and very little else.

As Hamlet says, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_prescribes_a_healthy_take_on_time.html

• Power distance – The degree to which a society expects there to be differences in the levels of power. A high score suggests that there is an expectation that some individuals wield larger amounts of power than others. A low score reflects the view that all people should have equal rights.
• Uncertainty avoidance - reflects the extent to which a society accepts uncertainty and risk.
• Individualism vs. collectivism - individualism is contrasted with collectivism, and refers to the extent to which people are expected to stand up for themselves, or alternatively act predominantly as a member of the group or organization. However, recent researches have shown that high individualism may not necessarily mean low collectivism, and vice versa[citation needed]. Research indicates that the two concepts are actually unrelated. Some people and cultures might have both high individualism and high collectivism, for example. Someone who highly values duty to his or her group does not necessarily give a low priority to personal freedom and self-sufficiency
• Masculinity vs. femininity - refers to the value placed on traditionally male or female values. Male values for example include competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions.
• Long vs. short term orientation – describes a society’s “time horizon,” or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In long term oriented societies, thrift and perseverance are valued more; in short term oriented societies, respect for tradition and reciprocation of gifts and favors are valued more. Eastern nations tend to score especially high here, with Western nations scoring low and the less developed nations very low; China scored highest and Pakistan lowest.

via Organisational culture, Wikipedia after reading Green Mars