In place of an ‘About’ page.

Imposter

I ≠ Adam Bede.

That’s the whole point.

George Eliot published the eponymous novel in 1859.

She - like all great writers - gave voice to an ineffable in/for me.

“Adam, you perceive, was by no means a marvelous man, nor, properly speaking, a genius, yet I will not pretend that his was an ordinary character among workmen…

He was not an average man.

Yet such men possess an inheritance of emotions nurtured by a simple family life of common need and common industry, and an inheritance of faculties trained in skillful, courageous labor.

They make their way upward, rarely as geniuses, most commonly as painstaking, honest men, with the skill and conscience to do well the tasks that lie before them. Their lives have no discernible echo beyond the neighborhood where they dwelt, but you are almost sure to find there some good piece of road, some company, or some hospital with which their names are associated by one or two generations after them.

Their employers were the richer for them, the work of their hands has worn well, and the work of their brains has guided well the hands of other men.

They are men of trust, and when they retire, the master who employed them says: ‘Where shall I find their like ?’”^1

George Eliot wasn't writing a saint's biography in 1859. She was describing a type — the person who shows up, does the work, builds the thing, and leaves the place better without needing a monument for it. No hacks. No personal brand. Just "skillful, courageous labor" in service of a future better than today.

That character named something I couldn't. So I borrowed him.

This site is the attempt — imperfect, ongoing — to think more clearly, act more deliberately, and earn the kind of trust Eliot describes. Words alone don't do it. But uninformed action is worse. So: words & work, words & work, ad infinitum.

If you want the answer to "Where shall I find their like?" to eventually be you and your community — welcome. Humbled to think through it with you.

Grateful.

Ted D.


🦶🏼 🎶

^1 Abridged for concision without diminishing sentiment. Full PDF here. Regarding male-only pronouns and icky terms like “master,” give her a break. She also might have meant it all as Marxian Irony, but that would require me to understand irony…

Philosophy

In college, one of our most beloved watering holes put up a series of signs (perks of free school-funded printing) around their house that read:

Atmosphere > Aesthetics

Aesthetics mislead.

When we forget this, aesthetics lead us to believe the formula for success looks like this:

Have —> Do —> Be

Once I have then I’ll become. This if-then conditionality places progress outside of our control, and it leaves us with an out, an excuse, a crutch.

To be a great soldier, partner, friend, don’t externalize:

Be —> Do —> Have

We already have all we need to get started, and once we do the rest follows.

Sometimes physical examples offer the quickest access: By definition, to be a runner you must run… Simple, right?

Then why do we often see the path toward being a runner through the lens of what we must have:

The So What

HDB enjoys the pretense of action without the work.

Paradoxically, BDH is less work. Because have at the end rather than beginning results in less guilt about shortcomings. Signing up for gyms we don’t use, commitments we break, and goals we miss drive us deeper into fatalism where we forestall permanently.

When Have shows up after the work, we see it as a reward, as buttressing work we’ve already accomplished, and as enhancing our new view of ourselves.

But it’s more than just us.

It’s an outlook.

It’s the the difference between formal and informal leadership.

Sure, I had formal control over my platoon in the Army.

And If you think that’s what influenced them to follow my orders, you’ve never met 40 infantrymen…

Formal leadership neither inspires nor forges fulfillment. Someone who crutches on formal leadership falls victim to the HDB mindset… They think they have to have the title in order to act the part, worse yet they think that since they have it they deserve the respect of others.

Remember, no one deserves more than a styrofoam cup.

Someone’s always said it better and in less words: “…if your fidelity to perfectionism is too high, you never do anything.”

If you choose to, you already are, so act accordingly.

Principles

The following principles guide this site.

Principled Amendments Awaiting Ratification

Aka, I haven’t chewed on them long enough to accept or reject

Foci

Default Ignorance

The Johari Window 🪟 is most often represented as four quadrants.

That’s understandable (I <3 a 2x2) and wildly misleading.

This is what every first year philosophy major (most often) obnoxiously conveys when they invoke Socrates’ wisdom as borne from the fact he knew he didn’t knew. Don’t let snobs tarnish insight. Our default for nearly everything is ignorance. And that’s okay. So long as we start from that acknowledgement.

Then what?

"Know something about something. Don't just present your wonderful self to the world. Constantly amass knowledge and offer it around." -Richard Holbrooke (See George Packer’s Our Man)

This site pairs Holbrooke’s advice with Munger’s wisdom regarding one’s circle of competence:

Always unsure of my precise contours, there’s a few spheres with some overlap that constitute a somewhat stable Venn.

🚧 (under construction; if the icon wasn’t obvious)

"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all." -Mr. Drucker

Culture

🚧 Under construction.

What comes is indebted to Seth G.