the downside
the FoolQuest.com opportunity, right for you?

 

I am looking for serious and interested people, nevertheless undaunted by the challenge before us, all easier said than done. Should any of these barest exploratory preliminaries herein presented or proposed, be rejected as difficult or demanding and complicated, I defy anyone to point out an easier and simpler path towards the same objectives. I, for one, would be intensely interested. Should anything herein presented or proposed, be rejected as unrealistic, then likewise the very objectives must be abandoned as unfeasible. I defy anyone to point out any lesser prerequisites at all towards the same objectives. I, for one, would be intensely interested. There are ever the many urging saticfice, instead.

This very discussion is entirely new, even though its actually nothing new at all: There is no end of the most common truism warning of the danger of how doing whatever is expected, even on a course of least resistance, even temporarily and strategically, no matter the purported extrinsic rewards, instead of seriously pursuing whatever truly individually suitable heart's desire, can be immensely destructive lifelong. But where is the real and tangible support for taking that wonderful advice? "Follow your bliss!" we are extolled, after beating us into submission and before throwing us to the sharks!

If to the best of my knowledge, anyone elsewhere already opening to all comers, any equivalent opportunity as herein proposed, I would simply ask to join in. But clearly, there isn't. And I have searched. But any of this is nothing that you would want, is it? -too risky, unconventional, complicated and too much trouble even to think through, or else I would have heard from you by now, wouldn't I? And I would welcome any serious comment. What would be the harm?

WARNING: If all of this is too difficult just to read and discuss,
then how will be any easier to follow through and accomplish??!
Ask yourself: What do I want, and what will it take?
And what what can I be happy doing about it?

As the saying goes: "No question is too stupid to be asked and no answer is too wise to be given." Conversation ought not be impoverished by restriction to the clear and familiar. The question is of the author's responsibility to their readers. -Of the clarity of the text, the effort on the part of the author beforehand to spare the readers any repetition of needless and wasteful aggravation ever after. I am not an obscurantist! But over simplification is distortion, not clarification. 

Fortunately, I am a living author on the Web. I am free to continually revise from substantive criticism. I am never bound to abandon my prose as finished and deathless, as were the printed authors of olden days and pre-electronic darkness! And what a blessing: The communication and construction of new ideas is ever a struggle, reciprocally. Therefore failure of comprehension should not be a conversation killer, but indeed the most meaningful conversation starter, often surprising, sometimes frightening.

To that noble end, it is always possible to offer, at the very least, copy editing remarks for clarification of any ambiguity in syntax and composition, and beyond such, critical analysis of concepts as may ever seem howsoever muddled or vague. Even disapproval begs question all the more so of why! The reciprocal engagement in criticism that makes for controversy, is the very opposite of both the maliciously empty hostility of flaming and of the irresponsible denial so characteristic of vague hand waving and pipedreaning.

Critical thinking tools of Dialectic include:

Are you interested? And why should you be? Why, for for my own grand purposes, of course! But actually, people who relate to any content to be discovered here on FoolQuest.com, tend to find interest entirely for whatever their own reasons, intrinsic motives under whatever their situation at the time. Stylistic complaint, as traditionally leveled against writing style or as common nowadays against webdesign, is a common diversionary tactic instead of acknowledging, addressing and directly confronting politically incorrect content. And catering thereto is a waste of time accruing scorn only all the more.

But interested readers don't even notice such trivialities as my admittedly terrible webdesign. Indeed, they may actually even appreciate my evocative prose. And they don't complain about making the effort, but actually appreciate the rhizomatic richness of information, yes the very density of the prose and even the writing style, my authorial voice. -Not arbitrary stylistic difficulty, but readably intelligent treatment of complicated ideas and substantive subject matter for an interested and cooperative reader. That is the target audience for whom the content significantly raises signal from out of the noise, rather than only drowning a fading signal amid all the more noise. Alas, for people who aren't really interested, its all noise regardless. Those who can think for themselves are often best understood by others likewise capable. But can we work together?

Responsibly thinking for oneself about such proposal as the one at hand, prompts two larger questions:  What do you want, and what will it actually take? In that light, how unreasonably demanding is FoolQuest.com, truly? If there is an easier course to success than first of all, simply paying attention, and not just more snake oil, then I don't know it.  Snake oil is simplistic. Reality generally turns out the more complicated, not less, and often daunting. But we can talk it over. By first taking and defining our positions anywhere on the scale or desired outcome and expectedly necessary effort, we can hope to move towards common ground. Let us consider that perhaps any correlation might be expected between organization, performance and results, first of all with the caliber of planning out from the sustained quality of discourse before hand.

Good students are enthusiastic. They join together into study groups on their own time. They are brownnosing eager goody two-shoes approval seekers, chomping at the bit to perform every dullardly fools errand put before them, hence often slyly despised by the other students, anything but enthusiastic, indeed, actually self-loathing and bitter in our oppression. But search the web, and alas, study groups are not found in any other context but school, formal education, or rather what passes for education, in ever much the same heteronymous preparation for drone like travail, eager and grumbling alike, marked all for our stations in life.

Have they then forever destroyed our capacity for initiative and collaboration? Do not the oppressed fathom that we are at war with our condition of oppression, in whatever guise that oppression assumes, and whatever form that struggle for real freedom, autonomy supported by capability, may take? Prisoners of war, naturally skeptical towards the authority of their captivity, defy slave mentality and form escape comities, ever planning, preparing and finally taking serious action. So where then are the study groups and research think tanks of the rebellion, the escape committees from the rat race? That is who I write this website for, if they will have me.

Free Your Mind... and Your Ass Will Follow.  George Clinton

 So if you must whine, then at least whine honestly!  Stymied and intimidated by big words? Really? Bah, humbug! Stand up! Get serious! In our arsenal we shall maintain the two taboo values of intellectual autonomy, that cannot be taken until they are willfully surrendered: Open ended and free ranging conjecture, speculation only afterward subject to critical preference via controversy which is the free exchange of criticism. But such is abstraction. And therefore serious planning demands the violation of yet a third taboo actually against bridging the distant and abstract with the proximate and practical. And the same begged question obtains as to the requisite level of communication to all of these lofty ambitions. 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

One day the Little Red Hen was scratching in the barnyard dirt, when what did she find, but a seed grain  and then another.

“This grain should be planted" said she. “Who will plant these grains of wheat with me?" \

“Not I!" replied the duck. “Not I!" agreed the goose, the pig, the cat and the dog, each in their turn. Unlike many of us, they had such better things to do, at least in the mind of the illustrator J. P. Miller!

Nevertheless, we all know how the story ends. And it could have been much worse. It often is.

 

 
 
 
Caveat: The challenge of hard work
active collaboration and the inevitability of friction
 
“Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work."   —  Thomas Alva Edison

 

Should anything herein presented or proposed, be rejected as difficult or demanding and complicated, I defy anyone to point out an easier and simpler path towards the same objectives. I, for one, would be intensely interested. Should anything herein presented or proposed, be rejected as unrealistic, then likewise the very objectives must be abandoned as unfeasible. Otherwise, I defy anyone to point out any lesser prerequisites towards the same objectives. I, for one, would be intensely interested. There are ever the many urging saticfice, instead.

The tremendous challenge, the conflict at hand between the particular underserved yearnings and market resistance in question, are only the most dramatic and highest stakes that there can ever be in affluent modern life: the very struggle with and ultimate resolution of alienation itself. So even given the yearnings and seeking of so many, who are those already actively seeking and hence already receptive to FoolQuest.com? Indeed all therefore, given all the above difficulties, how is any entrepreneurial approach to be deemed howsoever advantageous to confronting the challenge?

Heteronomy of ulterior agenda at cross purpose to autonomy, typically self replicates onto individuals at ulterior agenda cross purpose to one another. The among the worst noncollaborating collaboration partners are the ones, preferring all of nothing, to part of something, who no sooner approaching and initiating whatever ostensible collaboration, then distance themselves, cowardly dumping their dreams into another's lap who they set up for failure, typically making grand promises with no intention of keeping them, even grasping defeat from the very jaws of victory. These are the ones who have helplessly conned themselves before conning anyone else. For such is the passive hostility and megalomaniacal aloof superiority of compartmentalization even before there can ever be anything whatsoever to compartmentalize!

And to make matters worse, business people in particular play their cards so close to the vest, because in business life, sharing and inflicting a bad introduction puts an end to the good connections. This is understandable but unfortunate, because in building a management team for a start up, their will inevitably be some disappointing candidates, but the others must still rally in order to salvage new venture creation.

Cooperation among equals as espoused in Creativity Should be Social only means being practical and considerate: When the mad scientist needs the money-grubbing MBA to help transform his wild invention into a viable business model and prospect for capital, the money-grubbing MBA is subordinate to the mad needs and the mad vision the mad scientist. But when the money-grubbing MBA requires information and consultation from the mad scientist to fully understand his mad vision, and for the mad scientist to make nice and meet with prospective backers and strategic partners, the mad scientist will be only tickled pink to become subordinate even to the most crass materialism of the money-grubbing MBA! The disreputable PR man in turn subordinates himself to their needs and tailors a mesmerizing sales strategy and presentation. But then the mad scientist and the MBA must subordinate themselves in turn, to the chimerical superficiality of the disreputable PR man, taking their cues and learning their lines. Putting aside such things as ideological pride, everyone supports one another. Task interdependency is accomplished with dispatch. No one is left hanging for very long. For collaboration amongst equals actually combines the responsibility of leadership and subordination. For one can always be mistaken. Socratic Wisdom only means gauging the scope of one's own ignorance, questioning at the limitations of one's own knowledge and ability, with trust and confidence in ones strengths, but caution with one's own weaknesses, hence taking the lead in the former with the deference to follow in groping through our blind spots. Everyone guides one another, and everyone takes cues from one another, developing and exchanging information, ideas and criticism, building and improving upon all that they receive from on another, all without reluctance or mistrust. And those who just don't get it, who reject the give and take implicit to shared creativity and collaboration amongst equals, don't last long. With perseverance and quick recovery from these shake ups, the venture endures, making progress every day.

Social skills are typically presented as the royal road, key to forging crucial connections and relationships in life. Once one learns and performs in diligent heteronomy to consistent and uniform social expectations, whatever those may be, slowly one will begin to reap the rewards of social integration. Or so we are assured. But is this a testable hypothesis, or indeed only a cruel and stupid test of adamant blind faith in a cynical and desperate milieu of socially pervasive reciprocal objectification?

It has long been observed that the skills for popularity and the chivalrous skills characteristic of Menschlichkeit or creditable humaneness and integrity for friendship, can be so be vastly different.

Indeed, there remains, however, the counterhypothesis to the conformist view, that entirely to the contrary, individual connections and initiative are characteristic of autonomy and not merely the fruit of skillful social integration, but rather the emanating network origin of any broader secure social embedment. Thence often taboo do unto others questions arise of what we actually need from one another in order to be happier and more effective, instead of approval seeking and often even cutthroat social climbing. Genuine symbiosis among equals empowers and liberates.

This is an opportunity to get in not on the ground floor, but the deepest darkest most dank subbasement foundation, with under resourced uphill struggle all the way! WARNING: There is every risk of shattered hopes and wasted time. So it’s a damn good thing that I'm not asking you for so much as a thin dime! This is a pilot program, with distant hope of profitability down the line for participants to share. If you are a creative and ambitious person or ever want to be one, seeking new opportunity or indeed already networking and hammering out projects of your own, this may be directly pertinent and helpful. I am not so much trying to scam free labor off of you as maybe offering you free help on spec! -But more effectively thanks to a better protocol as proposed herein.

A would be leader must be bold, and cannot fear seeming foolish with a new idea. But someone must share the risk! The importance then, of the first follower, must never be underestimated. Derek Sivers expounds in 'How to Start a Movement,' that the first follower is the real leader, by example teaching others how to follow. The first follower must be embraced as an equal by the leader. The courageous first follower validates the lone nut as a leader indeed. This is a watershed: Further followers afterwards, need only emulate previous followers.

It is often argued that for the key to success, why, just listen to the successful and emulate them. But such reverence, playing it safe,  often leads only onto the primrose path to stagnation under the exploitation of dubious success gurus, with neither the motive nor the wherewithal to improve matters for the rest of us. Why would the successful need the unsuccessful, equally or even at all? After all, you can't just bet on a winning horse after it has already crossed the finish line! Furthermore, who among the successful is innocent and unscarred? Who among the wealthy and highly esteemed and successful,  admits to all the endless power plays, the reality of all that they have seen and done? The truth if often ugly, and the path into darkness.

So where is the light amid the ugly darkness? What uncharted island of hope is to be discovered amid the shark infested reaches? Here is one uplifting answer: Success is the product of teamwork among equals in cultures of respect, the investment by the as yet unsuccessful in one another. Success depends upon trial and error, a sustained cycle failure and quick recovery. But renewed attempt and recovery depends upon resources of one kind or another. Collaboration is the pooling of human resources into new beginnings. Alas however, all human interaction is so fraught with obstacles and pitfalls, and bonds of reciprocity in good will, one to one, each to each, even within any larger group, are everything. -Not the useless false togetherness of conformist agreeability, pretence and subservience. Remember the wisdom of Ecclesiastes, extolling the power and durability of human attachment, not herd mentality of impersonally Orwellian membership in the whole under heteronomy.

In  the words of Walter Lippmann: "The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and the will to carry on." And by this criterion, we are all both leaders and followers. But how is this accomplished? Not by bogus pep talks, spineless agreeability and delusionally willful positivity!! Beyond optimal conditions of incubation not by mere acquiescence and tolerance but actual joy in the Dialectic open exchange of conjecture and criticism facing reality in the crucible of truth via the practice of controversy hitherto discoursed upon, advancing thus and thence beyond creative and investigative discourse alone into more concrete preparation to action, in the most embryonic first concept inception "kitchen table" stage of phase, in-depth research, hammering out the first concept, outreach and recruitment, creative collaboration, every position can be a leadership position of ongoing initiative, because there are simply so many specialized decisions to be made, and work to be done, leaving no time to spare for boredom and arrogance. And interdisciplinary task interdependency mandates reciprocal logistical support, wherein all participants also to act as followers, rising to every opportunity to follow up and to substantively assist one another in any way in order to sustain momentum and positive reinforcement. -Even proverbially bending over backwards, to aid, abet and maximize, thereby to truly validate and dignify beyond mere glad-handing lip service,  one another's substantive contribution and make one another truly welcome in a culture of respect. Neglect is the collaboration killer. Genuine symbiosis among equals empowers and liberates. Social support is among the most important predicators if success, while interdisciplinarity is among the most crucial drivers of innovation. -vested interest in the stifling compartmentalization of academia and the corporate world, notwithstanding...

It is important to assess even the minimal time and effort towards whatever objective, even if only serious discussion in  preliminary feasibility study or just exploring ones own intrinsic needs, let alone soldiering ever onward from first concept and inception, all the way to execution. In initial compensation for the considerable risks entailed in accepting work on spec, there will be nothing to offer anyone else, except of oneself Anyone committed to do what you cannot or prefer not to do alone, is therefore more important than you are. And they damn well better feel the same way about you!  And this requires more than mere tolerance and acquiescence to these necessities. This is for people who yearn for the collaborative experience described herein, who would be only happy to help one another succeed together. Mutual appreciation and real assistance is what it actually means to be in this together, lofty higher purposes and values notwithstanding.

But any such a level of sustained commitment cannot simply be presumed upon, but estimated, requested and established in advance of the need arising as plans begin to really move forward. Engaging, or not, into whatever deeper involvement, effort and risk, at each stage in turn, is a serious decision for each individual participant, every time. This will help weed out unrealistic expectations, ulterior agendas and passive aggression beforehand. Furthermore, problems and grievances must be aired and resolved openly as ever arising, in cultures of respect and good will, if at all possible and reasonable.

Sometimes great ideas must be rescued from the possessive talons of their own most vigorous proponents. Beware of the leader who has already emotionally deserted the followers or collaborators they so ardently woo. Misrepresentation and ulterior agendas of passive aggression and control, of malignant Narcissism and promises that were simply never intended to be kept, proverbially pulling out the metaphorical rug of promised support and cooperation out from under, will be lethal to any new venture creation, unless prepared for in advance to catch us as we fall prey to such pernicious stumbling blocks. Should sweet reason and solicitude fail to open whatever festering problems and grievances to adequate resolution, thus to clear the logjam of recalcitrant foot-dragging, any venture must be flexible to reassign tasks out from the hands of passive aggression in a timely manner, and to change course however as necessary, forestall exasperated exhaustion, and recover from failure as quickly as possible.

This will be enough to spoil the malicious fun of passive hostile sabotage, and help curtail such destructive bullying behavior while retaining crucial talent, actually avoiding, if at all possible, estranging them or having to drive them off.

Of course, people are free to quit for any reason, good or bad. Who can stop them? It is those who care to forge ahead and preserve what they have invested of themselves, who must judiciously protect that option and freedom, even after whatever inevitable proverbial bump in the road as of personality conflict.

 

 

 

join in!

 
If neither of the above caveats has frightened you off:
Act now!
 
CONTACT:
 
choose the topic forum most appropriate
to the subject content of your message
OR email to: aaronagassi@comcast.netif its private

 

Copyright Aaron Agassi  2015 - 2017