Matt Todd's Pursuit of Idyll Minds

These are quotes from Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. I think they provide great insight into why it can be so challenging to hold intelligent debate, explore new ideas, and find consensus on issues involving dramatic change. Read on »

You know why this floor is like this? Because the offices down below, by code, have to have a certain amount of light. And the only way we could get it and to have this balcony was to make it a glass floor.

– Frank Gehry, from Sketches of Frank Gehry
Read on »

A great number of people come to me hoping they can change themselves and settle their anxieties, their problems in their marriage and whatever. They want to know how to handle life better. When an artist comes to me, he wants to know how to change the world.

– Milton Wesler, Frank Gehry’s therapist, from Sketches of Frank Gehry

You look at the charioteer, that sculpture in Delphi. It’s a Roman sculpture. And it says artist unknown. And it’s one of the most beautiful pieces of sculpture.

And I’m hoping that, out of democracy, comes an expression that is… the consensus is democracy. How does that express itself? It expresses itself chaotically. And that chaos – we’re starting to feel – is beautiful.

– Frank Gehry, from Sketches of Frank Gehry

When I see something negative [critical reviews] I usually try it on, like you’re trying on a pair of jeans. I try it on for size. I wear it. I think, maybe there’s something here. I look at it. And then, I must get something out of it, because I’m sure I… but I don’t digest it intellectually. I don’t take it in as “Oh, I’ve got to do this” or “I’ve got to do that”

– Frank Gehry, from Sketches of Frank Gehry

Perhaps that’s a little harsh, but why is it that I get complaints so often about the quality of design for new buildings in the city, yet when there is an open call for members to the Advisory Design Panel, not one responds? There seems to be no problem finding the time and energy to complain and write nasty letters, but not enough to be a part of a solution. If you have something to say about what the new buildings about your community look like, why not apply? Why not share your thoughts in a way that actually makes a difference? Why not help solve the problem rather than just complain about it?

Community isn’t about the government doing stuff for you, it’s about what everyone contributes to our shared experience. If complaining is your contribution, what kind of community are you creating?

If you think buildings in our city should be nicer looking, help make that happen. Apply to serve on the Advisory Design Panel.

It was suggested that I look up a book called The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz. In my search, I found this video of him explaining his theory. He says that more choice results in less satisfaction and jokes that the key to happiness is low expectations. In another lecture, he referenced a Harvard Center for Business and Government paper titled The Laws of Libertarian Paternalism.

They seem to suggest that the present-day explosion of unbridled choice is frustrating the pursuit of happiness. I haven’t studied the paper yet, but it sounds like they’re saying that the role of corporations, advisors, and government is not to promote or restrict choice, but to offer recommendations to assist those (which is almost everyone) who do not take the time or have the patience to sift through all the options and make a decision, and so are more likely to simply not make a decision — when not making a decision is to their own detriment, that those in leadership roles have a responsibility to help make those choices less daunting.

I expect this has huge insights on how people make choices during elections and complex exercises such as community planning.

I sincerely want to know.

My site tracker tells me that there are people who spend time reading this website even though almost nobody leaves comments. I don’t mind that at all, but for this one, I’d really like to hear what you have to say.

Climate change, drug addiction, over-burdened health care system, affordable housing, …

These have each been hot topics lately. Lots of time has been spent discussing them in the media, among strangers on the sidewalks, between friends at the pub or in your living room.

There is surprise at the scale of the problems. Blame is assigned. Obvious yet epiphanic solutions offered. Resignation to the unmovable realities.

I have been hearing a lot about what laws and regulations government should be putting in place to force us to do the things we already know we should be doing. I find this curious.

If I know the solution to a problem and I choose not to act on that knowledge, is it fair to blame government for not forcing me to do it? Is it reasonable to refuse until everyone else does it too?

Communities, societies, governments, corporations are all simply collections of individuals. Together, the choices these individuals make each contribute to form a shared purpose, action, consciousness.

So, on the consequences of those collective choices, my question to you is, what choices are you making to contribute to moving toward a vision of a safe, clean, healthy community? As you’ve read or heard more about these issues, what choices have you made? What are you doing different?

I’d really like to know.

Everyone knows that the newspaper can’t possibly give the whole story on an issue, but yet so many people react as though they have all the facts because they read about it in the Peace Arch News.

Myth: The tallest building approved for the Town Centre is 23 stories.
Despite this persistent popular myth, the building is 21 stories. That’s a simple fact. If you don’t believe me, go to City Hall, ask to see the building plans and count the floors yourself.

Just because a promotional illustration from very early in the design stage appeared to have 23 floors if you counted the windows doesn’t mean that is what is being built. What matters — what is accurate — is the plans approved by the City, not the promotional concept drawing. I’m certain that if the developer had anticipated the hassles of a clutch of conspiracy theorists nitpicking over the number of windows on a conceptual drawing, they would have had the artist redo it.

Myth: The mayor tried to stick the City with a $35,000 bill for the bears.
The mayor did not try to get the City to pay for the bears. She made a clumsy error of protocol and procedure. She did not break any rules or laws. She made an error. She feels dumb, apologized and fixed it without spending a penny of City money. Let’s move on, already. It’s long past time to get over it.

Myth: The City had to appoint a committee to figure out what to do with the bears.
A Public Art Committee was already needed to deal with a completely different donation of public art. It is actually more expensive and proposed for a more prominent location than any of the bears. But the way it sounds in the news is that the committee had to be set up just to deal with Judy’s bears. It does make the story more interesting, unfortunately it’s not true.

Last May I wrote a post titled responsibility. I wondered why some people choose to get angry at others when it becomes apparent that they themselves had erred or was seen to be unaware of something. There is no better example of this than the political acrobatic feats being performed in Ottawa. Incredible efforts have been invested in avoiding responsibility for Canada’s air pollution.

Earlier this week I wrote about the economic myopia of the current debate. Partisan mud slinging has been effective at making everyone look dumb and ineffective. But in wasting so much time and energy attempting to force “the other guy” to admit to having made mistakes or not trying hard enough, mistakes are being made and nothing meaningful is getting done. So, whether they accept it or not, they are each responsible for the Government’s inaction.

Where is the leadership on this issue? Accepting responsibility is essential to leadership. Leadership cannot be taken without accepting responsibility.

What Harper’s caucus seems to unwilling to understand is that there is only one Government of Canada. Over the history of our country, different political parties have held the majority of parliament, but each has been engaged in the same institution – the Government of Canada. In order to break out of this counter-productive finger-pointing game, Canada must accept responsibility for its choices and actions.

To all those with mud on their hands: get over yourself. Stop trying to assign blame for the past. We need to work together on this one. Discuss the issues without mentioning any political party. Talk about ideas without staking ownership. Let’s figure out what we want for the future and what each of us is willing to contribute.