In the case of a corporate client, I request that a process be established that produces a Character Statement that describes most of the same elements as in the case of the individual. The question as two distant parts – Who is this ‘I’ in the world; and, ‘what are the acts the “community” (an identified segment of people or institutions that hold a distinctive place for you or your organization) members in that world should notice about that ‘I’?

As any coach, worth the title, I must demonstrate a mastery of the work that I require – as an article of faith to the value of my work  – thus here I posit the frame  from  which the question – to be known, arises.

It is obvious that my existentialist is showing.

In the intellectual stream of existentialists  thought  ‘I’ holds a spot of importance not because it illuminates with great accuracy, but because it posses rich questions to those who would dare to take on the question. For instance, Martin Buber approaches the question of individuality by asking: what does it mean when someone uses the word ‘I’, or its equivalent?

After all, to be an individual person involves being able to speak for yourself in the first person: every language offers that possibility, in its own grammar. Even in the world of avatars and profiles there is the assumption that behind all the masks someone stands speaking to the world.

So for those who would make such utterances, the first person is a home holds our core stand – we each must honor (a promise we make to ourselves). But Buber then ask us to look again at that first person, that ‘I’. He suggests that ‘I’ has two fundamentally different ways of being used: there are two distinct first persons. By this, he does not mean there are two grammatical rules or dictionary meanings.

He means that people are doing one of two things when they take up their temporary home in the first person and say ‘I’ to the world, to the others – in community or not. Yes, there are times when shifting from one to the other is necessary  – but we are looking at general out looks not individual cases.

The question – am I using either the word ‘I-Thou’ or the word ‘I-It’?

According to Buber, ‘I-Thou’ and ‘I-It’ are the primary words’ in our lives. If your ‘I’ is an ‘I-Thou’, you are being yourself in the face of an equivalent person or presence – in community. If, on the other hand, your ‘I’ is an ‘I-It’, you are being yourself in a world which has no equivalent presence to your own, a world of objects not persons – others – not in community.

So ‘I-Thou’ expects a reply, it is the ‘I’ of dialogue and responsiveness.

You can give your view in a disagreement by saying ‘I think you are wrong’ in such a way as to recognize that the other will have his own response. You don’t mean to imply doubt, but you do mean to allow the other to be present, to participate. In the virtual world this is like permitting comments.

Or, you can say ‘I think he is wrong’, and make the other into a mere object of your commentary, an object which, if it speaks again, will merely be observed and judged like other objects – noise – spam – or disallowed comment.

In either case the only way to judge which ‘I’ is the current stand is in the context of the engagement.

• So the first element for which I will be known is to stand for tactics of transparency from which ‘I’ is speaking: authentically.

This raises two issues,

1.  the first relates to the general context of the reality assumed for this ‘I’ to exist as internal voice

2. the second is what is meant to be engaged with this ‘I’.

• The bare description of the world for this ‘I’ is that it conspires with other ‘I’s, and not ‘I’s to create reality: a maker of reality – not a seeker.

Simply, we in community confront and engage objects in our meaning making efforts to organize and describe our lives.

In this age, we have come to recognize that everything is made up of buzzing atoms or as patterns of energy or as chemical formulae that have no consciousness of human feeling or intent. But, for to us, these added facts do not undermine the status of the ‘I’ we see: we make ourselves, not alone – we do not find ourselves complete and encased.

The ‘I’ in this case is an expression more about the continuing exercise of overlapping choice in the face of either a world that neither knows nor for that matter cares about our existence.

The status of the ‘I’ is jointly held in social status and authenticity: reputation and honor.

To experience the reality of ‘I’ is through recognizing that experience of not ‘I’: somewhere between here and there the ‘me’ has ended and other realities come into play. This is where the context and engagement of community enter the picture. You are known by what others say you are and how you hold yourself to be!

In community – the co-joining of realities into a language game of pre-established and continually changing rules opens up. It is not so much that there are formal hand books of required language for each community. As it turns out – even when there are such books they are of varied or limited usefulness. What actually performs the heavy lifting is the cultural affiliations  – those self selected spaces by each ‘I’.

You learn texting not by reading the books on it, but in the usage with friends that respond to your utterances or not. In this sense you know the game in the playing.

Not only do you learn the game in the playing – you learn the status of the players in the playing. The notion that reputation defines a hierarchy of influence that the community spreads in or against the reality of the ‘I’s ability to be heard in playing is a key.

My skills, knowledge and abilities are focused on providing strategic and tactical acts to increase the reputation of my clients and  myself.

Thus far what I have explained has specifically defined my role as coach (not as a human, man or father) both from the individual and organizational framework. What I have provided is a definition of my views and my ontological positioning of the world I suggest each client arrives with in seeking my advice and consul.

In summary they believe that they want to speak from the stand point of an authentic ‘I’ to be heard by use of an authentic voice both within a specific community and non communities for the purpose of co-creating a reality to their liking. They also believe that this is done through the use of social media tools that engage in language games that they wish to master by engaging selected communities and speaking up.

Darken back to the invidious  lords of greed – Milton Friedman or Gordon Gekko make the negative argument – Capitalism is best economic system because Marxism failed. The real task is to balance the hungers that drive the individual and the needs of a society that must huddle together in the darkness of mystery.  We have seen what unbridled financial institutions are capable of  in search for greed.

In a not yet published post (Authentic Leadership), I all make the argument that alienation is at the core of leadership. The desire to push away from the herd to be held aloft not for the money earned but the spirit of distinction and ones honor (the promise made to yourself).

In that same post, I will describe the correlation between leadership – darken by greed and an addict’s.  I write that alienation – tactic of choice in the lifestyle of greed. For both addicts and non-addicts, one of the more baffling dynamics of greed is the apparent need to live life at the level of a soap-opera.

In my Addicts Prayer, I mentioned the tensions and the walls of separation which “… make mountains out of molehills,” says Narcotics Anonymous (1982, p. 93). That hunger that drives us to increase the intensity in our lives. Relationships are often rancorous facts, thoughts of revenge rival any Hollywood movie, are embellished to make life-stories more interesting – getting the greatest or largest collection of “toys” becomes overwhelming. What else can we call for such great sums of money as some of the captains of industry receive.

A Response to Greed!

In respect to a “life under the influence of greed” what are the responsibilities for building or rebuilding your reputation. If such an obligation exist, how will I as the Reputationist demonstrate this accounting. There are several different views that must be taken into account – there is the economic necessity of the market – greed alone has failed – on this, the fact that Phronêsis,  Inc. – for that matter Timeout, Inc.. are for-profit enterprises tells only part of the story – I believe the market can balance more than one goal at a time -  in fact I believe in the triple bottom line. If the market demands it our approach will flourish, if not – it will fade in silence – greed will not persist by my hand.

Throughout this post and across our system of communication, we are using two distinct value frame works:

1. Hard value – tangible, easy to see and measure results. Dollars earned (revenue or top line contributions) time saved in mission critical processes, increased inefficiencies for mission critical people and/or resources, or dollars, and/or time saved. This is based on the assumption that only advocated product succeeds. Our solution is linked using the marketplaces hunger for lower cost and greater profits. Hard Value is usually expressed by using numbers or percentages.

2. Soft Value – intangible, difficult to see and measure. Shifts in attitude toward meaning of life (in the positive direction), lower stigmatization, less danger, less stress/worries, guarantees, greater image/recognition, ease of use, etc., etc. Soft Value is usually expressed by descriptive words and phrases and/or by painting a word picture— anecdotal stories.

What impact will Phronêsis/Timeout Inc.’s approach to critical demands of building profit/reputation be as opposed to its competitors?

Our methods will prove themselves better – more accurate- performed with less labor or cost and more human – more empowering and Happier. These are questions yet to be answered but stand at our focus –  to be addressed in other sections of thought and over time in this blog.

Our business and client practice model is predicated on increasingly becoming more consumer based, mobile and frequently working  and from remote temporary locations – social networks in the building and testing products while building reputation at every turn. Close attention will be applied to the physical locations for they have to be keenly understood, given the particular social dynamic we all confront.

Our organizational model is a social network of interlocked specialist coming together virtually to approach this market worthy space of behaviorally addicted. Ours is a combination of relatively autonomous entities or “business atoms” that stay together as long as they meet its member’s specific goals while remaining engaged in other activities. Stick around to learn if you are such an atom!

Efficiency  Demands!

A Beautiful life looks like something, what?  I believe I know. If you are entertaining the idea I might have something either worthy or simply interesting  to say referencing the subject, then you should read on.

Mine is a technical issue –  SIMPLY PUT – to earn your attention I must demonstrate an ability to argue the truth-or-falseness of logically constructed statements – at a minimum, state it clearly to your satisfaction. To engage  ”authentically” (for a later article) is to open myself to a wide audience in so doing. This blog is how I state such an argument.

We start – how does beauty act in the world.  The following starts conversation – that we will over time harken back  through various historic frames and various canonical arguments – frame my choice: my stand.  I state in each – do we still want this outcome or do we choose another.  I am of the mind that our self image, political choice, gadget selection are effected by this answer.

In the largest, most abstract sense, I ‘m commenting on the of use such labels  as “truth-or-false”and particular views continuous efforts to confound the choice.  It is our general interest to plot the particular features of this strategy and their supporting reasons about “the question of our choice.” This blog will serve as an antidote to idea the crowds know best.

My “style of thinking tends to draw out those that want to fix realty by way reason over mystery. I will bring to the foreground those senses and features the way in which the clever bring about positive reaction pointing to the truth or to falsehood.” of one stand over another.  In other words, the style of reasoning is based “in short, all too often on self-authentication”.

Take the question of anonymity? Which of the following cities would you rater live and once you’ve chosen who would you want to hold the ownership of public’s security?

Two cities:

One where intelligence is gathered and owned by the few relating to the many.

The other, where intelligence is gathered and owned by all relating to everyone.

The question is “Will average citizens’ share, along with the mighty, the right to access these universal monitors?  Will common folk have, and exercise, a sovereign power to watch the watchers?

Despite the complexities like:

Might any person order up a search program, using sophisticated pattern-recognition software to scan a throng of passersby and zero in on a specific face?  If such “traps” could be laid all over town, a lot of fugitives might be brought to justice.  But will individuals ever again be able to seek anonymity in a crowd?  Will people respond by wearing masks in public?  Or will safety ultimately come when people unleash their own search programs, to alert the watched about their watchers?