The Second Time Around: Human Beings Are Good

In mid-2010, for some reason, I decided that I would start a third blog that would focus more on philosophies, literature, etc.  I was inspired by several other blogs of that sort being run by folks in the technology world who had literary interests (for example, see the excellent book review blog, BookSnob by Lithium CMO Katy Keim) and by Paul Sweeney of VoiceSage (more on him in the actual post below) who is a published poet.  I needed to fulfill my more spiritual, sensitive side, my empathy, my literary ambitions etc.  I would call it: “Science of Business, Art of Life” which was derived from something that I quoted frequently – “CRM is the only science of business that attempts to reproduce an art of life – how humans interact.” 

Well, we see where that got me.

I had one post in 2010 entitled “For Openers Humans are Good” – and that was it.

So, reluctantly, but obviously, I’m going to close out the blog.

But, I really liked the one post I did so to preserve it, I’m moving it – and subjects like it - into the PGreenblog picture henceforth. Especially after I transfer PGreenblog to my 56 Group social site when it launches later this year. Lots to talk about with that one but not now. PGreenblog will be migrated to Wordpress and onto the Joomla! based site. 

In the interests of historic preservation, I’m re-presenting my post which outlines my outlook on things via a Shakespearian sonnet I wrote many many years ago.  All Shakespearian scholars, forgive me in advance. Its my faux-Shakespearian English. Okay? Please?

Here ‘tis.

 

Hi There

I have spent hours trying to figure out what to open this blog with and have been simultaneously pumped up about some idea and then crashed down when I realized that it was either stupid, or pretentious or just really wouldn’t work.  The whole purpose of this blog, as you may be able to guess by the name isn’t for me to just spew my personal feelings onto a digital wall every few…whenever…. It’s real purpose is to look at the bigger issues of human interactions from a more deeply personal and broader perspective – covering perhaps philosophy, neurobiology, art, pop culture, sports, economics – any and all large categories that encompass human social behavior – and mine too.

I did finally come up with something that I think would set the tone for the blog that I’m comfortable with and completely supports my persona of tough but sensitive New York metrosexual (see my Dissecting The Man Purse on PGreenblog and you’ll catch my drift) (you’re welcome to add an LOL here if you want. I’m thinking it).  I’m going to talk about poetry.

Better still, I’m going to publish a piece of poetry that I wrote twenty years ago because it reflects what I think and something I think is very important to how humans interact, trust and actually might live as individuals.  I was inspired to do this by a Skype discussion I had on Thursday, with a long time buddy, SCRM advocate, super smart Irish wag, Paul Sweeney, who is the European Marketing Director at VoiceSage – and a published poet.

Behind the Cadence

Okay, a blatant “Behind the Music” ripoff. I wanted to say “Behind the Music of the Spheres” which aside from being a reference to something from the Harmonia Mundi of Johannes Kepler and a beautiful poetic way of expressing how the universe is organized – both physical and otherwise – it sounded kinda arrogant. So I made it this instead.

The Fundamental Philosophy – Or At Least What I Believe

The concept that drives the poetry, I hope is clear.  Man, as a species, and as an individual, is grounded in Good (the capital G is deliberate).  Just to be crystal clear, this is not a religious concept at all. This is the fundamental nature of human beings – or at least how I see it.   That Good though while perhaps a birthright, doesn’t mean that it will be utilized through life. What it means is that we have the option to be Good and the free will to exercise that Good – or not.

The poem argues that any individual human being has the capacity for Good because we are created that way. If we see God as the instrument of creation (I’m using God metaphorically here, as force of creation, not religiously) and God is perfect then creating man in his own image implies that Good nature. If man isn’t good, then God must be imperfect – and who thinks that?

Philo Judaeus, a great turn of the millennium Jewish philosopher and Platonic thinker, and one of my personal philosophical heroes, wrote in his most famous piece “On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses” “Every man is a miniature heaven.”  Which, translated into plain English, means each of us has a spark of divinity within; the ability to move on a self-perfecting path toward that greater Good. We will never be perfect, but can be self-perfecting. But we also have the choice of whether and how we exercise that capability.

From my perspective, this is how each of us as individuals simply is and that affects how each of us interacts with each other and social entities e.g institutions.

To put it in a small way (NOT a tweetable version. I’ve learned my lesson on that): “Each of us is fundamentally Good. What we do with it is up to each of us.”  Anything I believe in when it comes to CRM/SCRM and life in general starts from here.

The Actual Structure

As far as the structure of the poem, it’s written in the strict form of a Shakespearian sonnet. The rhyme and the meter are:

• Rhyme scheme = abab cdcd efef gg. 
• Rhythm is iambic pentameter. Honestly, this isn’t my thing to explain iambic pentameter or tell you how to write Shakespearian sonnets. Here’s a place that you can go to learn how to write one if you’re so inclined.

The language is my interpretation of Shakespearian English, meaning it probably sounds kinda real but I’m sure any actual scholar or student of historic forms of the English language could shred me on this one until I cry big sloppy tears.  But the point is the point either way.

The Poem

A SONNET UPON CONTEMPLATING THE SOUL OF SHAKESPEARE

Thy beneficence, o’ Man, doth acquiesce

As baseness, coarse and foul, corrupts thy soul

But basest human being is Godly-blessed,

With baser man’s born Good like near-born foal.

Thy spirit tossed about by dark’ning wind,

Cold and brutal night descends on thee.

The chill blows harsh and deep through wounds of sin,

Appearance of the Good seems mockery.

Yet, mockery and tragedy are bound

In Nature’s pilgrimage to heaven’s portals.

E’en foulest souls of earth may choose the ground

To tread with Nature’s search for fairest mortals.

If Good not be the base for human pleasure,

Then perfect God, imperfect in his measure.

So…

What you are reading here is pretty much what I think and feel.  All I do in CRM stems from this notion. All that you will see me do in the future stems from this notion.  All future discussions in the Science of Business, Art of Life will be grounded in this notion. I have no idea what you think of the poem, or if you can even understand the lingo.  But I do know one thing.  Its a joy to be alive and there’s a lot more than just CRM there to be alive for. So if you’re interested, and don’t think I’m just being some pretentious, pompous jerk worth ignoring, please let me know what you think at whatever level you feel comfortable publicly speaking of.  On whatever bigger issues you might want to concern yourself with. But please try to be true to the spirit of the kind of conversation the blog is about – which is as human beings interacting with each other all the time over time, we have to recognize our ability to choose what we do and to choose the direction that we take. What is common among us is our ability to each choose Good over other things.  What isn’t common is how we do that. Or not. That impacts culture, science, art, music, philosophy, economics, play, politics, food, wine and spirits, and any other individual human or institutional endeavor we are involved in. Which is what Science of Business, Art of Life is all about.

What else could it possibly be about but that?

Comments

[carpet cleaning gilbert]

If you want to get down to those smells and deep down grime you are going to need to find another solution.

[Click Here]

Thus, when your child wants a particular plaything, he or she can go directly to the box that holds it.

[Patrick Boucousis]

Paul,

I have just spent some hours reading your blog. I must admit to a sense of failure in that I haven’t discovered it earlier; I have no excuse. It really is an excellent resource.

I have some comments, which then beg a question. I had wondered where best to post them, but your comment “CRM is the only science of business that attempts to reproduce an art of life – how humans interact” makes this the obvious spot.

It seems to me there is a large piece missing from the SCRM map, at least in B2B. Not to detract from the many fine products in the space, I wonder if there’s some confusion between the hole and the donut. For example, in B2B CRM/SCRM who is the customer exactly? I mean, organizations (collections of people) and individuals are typically referred to interchangeably, but they are quite different.

In striving to ‘get closer to the customer’, do we mean the organization (the amorphous mass) or particular people in it? I’d suggest the latter, specifically the powerful and the influential...by definition the people that impact us most, whoever they might be. The distinction is important, as engaging with people personally is of course different to engaging with them as a collective.

What does this mean for CRM/SCRM? Well, if we really mean individuals, how do we reconcile our perception of each as a unique being with them as a collective? How can we make what we learn about people individually relevant to understanding how an organization behaves?

For example, we understand the nature of social communities to which people belong as themselves e.g. Facebook, Linked In et al. But do we perceive organizations the same way e.g. do we see customer organizations as social communities? I’d suggest not, simply because B2B CRM has no concept of human beings; instead there are contacts...people in the context of roles they perform; they have no context of themselves. That is, organizations are not seen as collections of unique human beings, interrelated in various ways, but as structures made up of roles/positions.

Mary Bloggs who is in Facebook and Linked In and who is the CEO at ABC Inc and a Director of XYZ Corp, would constitute at least two Mary’s in a CRM (with duplicated links to FB and LI). There cannot be a single Mary, much less personal relationships between her and the people she knows and influences or is influenced by.

The threads become even more tenuous as the extent of what we call ‘our’ social enterprise grows e.g. to include employees, partners, suppliers.

We can attempt to join the dots by looking in different systems/networks and use mash-up apps to help pull data together, but it is still a mash-up. There is no one place where information from both external and internal (our CRM) sources comes together seamlessly, such that when viewed from any one perspective, all other perspectives are immediately apparent. There is no ‘single view’.

My question is Paul, would you agree?

If not then I suspect that is the end of this conversation :) If yes, then I am keen to get your opinion on what we have developed to address the need. Yes, we are unashamedly seeking attention, but not on the basis of us drinking our own bathwater, rather on the basis of qualified opinion.

So far I have avoided talking about us, but just by way of providing at least some insight…

We are a very small Australian-based company (still ‘starting-up’), albeit we have developed a large enterprise app (Traxor). We don’t have the resources or funds to engage with influencers in the ways you have suggested; we’re more your can of beer than Cakebread Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon style of outfit, but we’re not after charity either.

If we had met the CRM Idol criteria, I would certainly try for next year’s comp, but we are more than 7 years old, which is a shame as it seems such a fantastic idea. So I wonder; what are the alternatives?

Can you recommend how I should go about getting an opinion?

Thank you for reading this far

Patrick Boucousis
CEO/Founder
www.traxor.com