I love posting from The Tree of Knowledge.  This is what they have to say about tubes (emphasis mine):

Our discussion has led us to conclude that, biologically, there is no “transmitted information” in communication.  Communication takes place each time there is behaivioral coupling in a realm of structural coupling.

This conclusion is surprising only if we insist on not questioning the latest metaphor for communication which has become popular with the so-called communication media.  According to this metaphor of the tube, communication is something generated at a certain point.  It is carried by a conduit (or tube) and is delivered to the receiver at the other end.  hence, there is a something that is communicated, and what is communicated is an integral part of that which travels in the tube.  Thus, we usually speak of the “information” contained in a picture, an object or, more evidently, the printed word.

According to our analysis, this metaphor is basically false. It presupposes a unity that is not determined structurally, where interactions are instructive, as though what happens to a system in an interaction is not determined by the perturbing agent and not by its structural dynamics.  It is evident, however, in daily life, that such is not the case with communication: each person says what he says or hears what he hears according to his own structural determination;** saying does not ensure listening. From the perspective of an observer, there is always ambiguity in a communicative interaction. The phenomenon of communication depends on not what is transmitted, but on what happens to the person who receives it.** And this is a very different matter from “transmitting information.”

So that’s all a bit of a mouthful, but its an important aspect of communication—it’s not the creation or production of something_, it’s the making of an _affect or_ inducing an action_ upon someone.

The ambiguity of language is something that Bakhtin has touched on (and I have posted before):

[Bakhtin explores] the idea that language is indeed ambiguous, but whereas deconstruction would highlight this ambiguity as the inability of words to convey precise meaning, Bakhtin welcomes this vagueness of language as a means by which to create meaning dialogically.

This is a very positive and optimistic statement of embracing dialogue as the means to overcoming the biological and structural limits of our individualism.  And which, you can probably assume, I strongly agree with.

I was forwarded this from Angelina, who apparently read it on the side of her Starbucks cup (emphasis mine):

“There is a subtle difference between a mission and a promise. A mission is something you strive to accomplish – a promise is something you are compelled to keep. One is individual, the other is shared. When a mission and a promise are one and the same . . . that’s when mountains are moved and races are won.”

Hala Moddelmog,
Pres. and CEO,
Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

The last sentence is mostly pablum, but from yesterday’s post about dialogue and creating a shared community, I think it’s important to think about not only what your own committment is, but also the expectations you are committing to with others.  In other words, a mission is a statement, a promise is a contract.

Of all things, tonight in my Institute for Nonprofit Management and Leadership class we were talking about Online Fundraising. I got a little frustrated since (a) I couldn’t get a word in and (b) they were really making a muck of it. What I was hearing was a confusion of the indicators of successful online fundraising with the methodology for creating successful online fundraising; saying things like “have a taste-maker blogger promote it” and “get people to post it on their friend’s Facebook wall”. To take a line from Joe Breiteneicher’s Quest: they were identifying with the money, not the purpose. So allow me some catharsis…

Online fundraising is no different than offline fundraising—heck, people of my generation don’t even recognize that there is a difference between on- and offline. What people want when they give is no different no matter where they give or where they are. The only difference is efficiency. Everything you can do online, you can do off-, except the reason you didn’t do it before was that it was so inefficient that no one expected you to. And now that the online sphere makes it so cheap and easy (well, if you’re doing it right), people demand it.

So what are people demanding: Community. Donors want to be linked with clients, linked with providers, linked with other organizations through you. If they don’t, it’s because they don’t realize yet that they can be—just like Britain didn’t have good food because no one demanded it because no one supplied it because no one demanded it (yes, that’s Krugman). I’m not saying that everyone will be an A-type personality—a healthy community is diverse both in participants and modes of participation—but people want the opportunity for participation.

So how do you build a successful community? What do people really want that will lead to a healthy community? I’ll just quote my notes from a conference session I attended called What Freud and Buddha Understood (and We’re Forgetting) about Online Outreach:

• Need 1: To be SEEN and HEARD
• Need 2: To be CONNECTED to someone or something
• Need 3: To be part of something GREATER THAN THEMSELVES
• Need 4: To have HOPE for the future
• Need 5: The security of TRUST
• Need 6: To be of SERVICE
• Need 7: To want HAPPINESS for self and others

When you build a campaign—whether on- or offline— that includes these components, it has the best chance of being successful. This will cause the taste-makers to stop staring at their navels and the Facebook crowd to stop poking eachother (or throwing sheep)—and start talking about you. And possibly create something else that you didn’t realize would happen in the first place… that will bring in the money.

As an ending thought, think about why churches are so successful with fundraising. They link purpose with practice with people—and do such a good job that you may not realize when you are serving the church, serving the community or when they are serving you. If a church can do that because of a shared moral calling, think about what you can do with a shared ethical and social calling. Think about it!

The Tree of Knowledge is a goldmine of concepts and ideas.  The most interesting parts are at the end—in discussions of society, communications and language.

What biology shows us is that the uniqueness of being human lies exclusively in a social structural coupling that occurs through languaging, generating (a) the regularities proper to the human social dynamics, for example, individual identity and self-consciousness, and (b) the recursive social dynamics that entails a reflection enabling us to see that as human beings we have only the world which we create with others—whether we like them or not.

What I like most is the circular nature of the self-conception of individuals being tied to their use of language; the strength and ability of that language is tied to the richness and diversity of their interactions with others; those interactions are communication—strongly defined as activities triggering a change in the recipient; that change affects the individual’s own self-conception and consciousness.  It’s a little heady, so I made up a graphic:

All of the components are core to our human reality.  And, recursively, we cannot describe this reality without them.

On the practical side, I think the tidyness in which language and communication are linked and allowed to dynamically affect one another is astounding. Language—not just as words, but as a means of communicating and affecting change in others—is a continuous development.  Our individual ability to language is a function of the richness of our interactions with others, continuously enriching itself as we add new experience to it, and use it to create descriptions of descriptions (and so forth) of those experiences.  And, that the effectiveness of our language is the measure of our ability to communicate—effecting change—with others.

This calls to mind (well, it does for me) the thoughts of the Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin who advanced the idea of the dialogic within literature, stating things along the lines that “a dialogic work carries on a continual dialogue with other works of literature and other authors. It does not merely answer, correct, silence, or extend a previous work, but informs and is continually informed by the previous work.” Expanding this:

For Bakhtin, all language - indeed, all thought - appeared dialogic. This means that everything anybody ever says always exists in response to things that have been said before and in anticipation of things that will be said in response. We never, in other words, speak in a vacuum. As a result, all language (and the ideas which language contains and communicates) is dynamic, relational and engaged in a process of endless redescriptions of the world. [from Wikipedia, though you can read much more advanced dissertation on Bakhtin]

The unbroken linearity of consciousness is interesting enough. Once we have experienced something, we cannot go back and un-experience it.  I have participated in many conversations of “What album do you wish you could listen to for the first time again?” (for me it’s The Clash, The Clash). Jorge Luis Borges explores it within the short story “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote”:

Those who have insinuated that Menard devoted his life to writing a contemporary Quixote besmirch his illustirous memory.  Pierre Menard did not want to compose annother Quixote, which surely is easy enough—he wanted to compose the Quixote.  Nor, surely, need one be obliged to note that his goal was never a mechanical transcription of the original; he had no intention of copying it. His admirable ambition was to produce a number of pages which coincided—word for word and line for line—with those of Miguel de Cervantes.

I just finished reading The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. I posted upon the book earlier, but I wanted to paste in the conclusion, which I think presents an interesting closure to their introductory thesis: “doing is knowing, and all knowing is doing”—a thesis the authors make a compelling case for.

The knowledge of knowledge compels. It compels us to adopt an attitude of permanent vigilance against the temptation of certainty. It compels us to recognize that certainty is not a proof of truth. It compels us to realize that the world everyone sees is not the world but a world which we bring forth with others. It compels us to see that the world will be different only if we live differently. It compels us because, when we know that we know, we cannot deny to ourselves or to others that we know.

That is why everything we said in this book, through our knowledge of our knowledge, implies an ethics that we cannot evade, an ethics that has its reference point in the awareness of the biological and social structure of human beings, an ethics that springs from human reflection and puts human reflection right at the core as a constitutive social phenomenon. If we know that our world is necessarily the world we bring forth with others, every time we are in conflict with another human being with whom we want to remain in coexistence, we cannot affirm what for us is certain (an absolute truth) because that would negate the other person. If we want to coexist with the other person, we must see that his certainty—however undesirable it may seem to us—is as legitimate and valid as our own because, like our own, that certainty expresses his conservation of structural coupling in a domain of existence—however undesirable it may seem to us. Hence, the only possibility for coexistence is to opt for a broader perspective, a domain of existence in which both parties fit in bringing forth of a common world. A conflict is always a mutual negation. It can never be solved in the domain where it takes place if the disputants are “certain.” A conflict can go away only if we move to another domain where coexistence takes place. The knowledge of this knowledge constitutes the social imperative for a human-centered ethics.

Quoting the conclusion here doesn’t do it justice since this comes proceeding 9 closely interlinked chapters, but I think the authors make a powerful statement.

But, to follow up, I’ve been wanting to throw the following quote into a post for quite sometime. The quote is from Neal Stephenson’s The Diamond Age and, as the book takes place in the future, is ostensibly a statement of our current times:

“You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices. It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, where you are not allowed to criticize others—after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?

“Now, this lead to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour—you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to ferreting out of hypocrisy.”

I want to add this quote because I think it throws into sharp relief the emphasized statement in the first quote: “every time we are in conflict with another human being with whom we want to remain in coexistence”. The ethical statement makes the case that all viewpoints are personally valid, but need not be embraced let alone tolerated inter-personally nor socially_—nor geo-politically, if you want to go there. Though there is—as the case is strongly made in the Tree of Knowledge—an expansion of self, and thus knowledge, and thus realm of action, in that _understanding of others. Which is important indeed.

(Also regarding that last quote: I also really dislike it when people whine about hypocrisy.)

I have a guest post up today at Entry Level Living on understanding and negotiating your non-profit salary. It’s targeted towards people who already have a nonprofit job and are looking to increase their piece of the pie. The last piece of advice from the article is stay mobile. If you’re looking for a new nonprofit job, here are some tips:

If you didn’t do due diligence the first time, you should definitely fully research the place you’re interested in. Once again, knowing how to read a Form 990 is immensely valuable (and you can search them for free here and here—though the latter requires free registration).

• Looking at the upper-level salaries, what’s the maximum you could ever make?
• Did the organization take a loss last year? Looking at a couple years, are they growing or contracting?
• How is the organization making their money? That’s what they really care about—not necessarily their published priorities.
• Do they pay a lot of money to contractors? What internal competencies is the organization lacking?
• Look at their asset statement. Does the organization have the equipment you need to do the work efficiently (e.g. modern computers)?

Any number of these could generate questions to ask during the interview, or grist for the question “How did you prepare for this interview?”

Some Non-990 advice:

• Know yourself. Make an honest assessment of what kind of management you need to flourish, and be ready to answer the question “What kind of supervision do you work best under?” Do you want to figure things out for yourself or be told how to do it? Do you do better with routine or having different activities every day? Even if this is your first job, try to think of a teacher or professor that worked with you in a way you liked.

• Spend time on your cover letter. For-profit hirers flip to the resume to look for experience; nonprofit hirers read the cover letter with an eye for heart. Make it a passionate statement for why you do what you want to do. It’s not the body of the letter that counts, it’s the soul.

• Salary ranges are not hiring ranges The published upper limit is most likely the maximum you will ever make in that position. Don’t expect to successfully negotiate for the higher amount.

• What did you used to make. If you’re asked about your salary expectations (and you really shouldn’t be if it’s an entry level job—both of you should know you’ll be making next to nothing), instead talk about your salary history. What have you earned in the past (and what benefits have you received)? Be clear that your aware you may be taking a pay cut, but make up for it by stressing your alignment with their mission and services.

• Use the hiring process as a guide. I know many people who say “I should have known when they hired me…” If the job description is poorly written, you have trouble getting direct answers to questions, or you feel parts of the hiring process take place in bad faith, take that as a warning of what it’s like to work there. Do they model the type of behavior you expect and respect?

And most importantly, stay positive and open minded. Right now it’s tough for everyone to find a job. Don’t get caught on a narrow path. A nonprofit career is not the only way to do good.

Last week I wrote a post discussing how non-profit employees should approach their salaries and financial well being.  Ben Sheldon left a fantastic comment about some of the problems he saw in non-profit salaries—mainly that they were difficult to discern.  So I asked Ben to follow up on his comment by offering some tips on understanding and negotiating your non-profit salary. There’s nothing shocking in saying that if you pursue a nonprofit career, you won’t be rich. In my research, you’re bound (on average) to make about 25-30% less in the nonprofit sector than an equivalent job in for-profits. Which is pretty tragic since a nonprofit is just another corporation with a funny tax loophole. While a nonprofit job isn’t the only way to do good, choosing to work in a non-profit unfortunately means taking lower pay. With that said, working in a nonprofit can be a labor of love, convenience, necessity, common sense, or any combination. However, to ignore the issue of compensation is unproductive as we all want to take care of ourselves and know we are being treated fairly. So I’ll concentrate on some common sense tips for helping yourself figure out if your nonprofit salary is up to snuff. If you already have a nonprofit job and think you should be earning more money, the first place to look is at your organizational budget or—if you can’t get your hands on that—the taxes. Compared to private companies, nonprofits must disclose incredible amounts of information about themselves in public documents. Both Foundation Center and Guidestar offer free Form 990 lookup services (though Guidestar requires you to register). There’s a lot to learn from it: you can dive right in, or here’s a longish guide. You first want to know if it’s even realistic to ask for more money. From the 990 (Part V-5) you’ll learn who is making more than $50,000 a year, or, just as likely, that no one is. This will give you a good idea of the salary ceiling—nothing is more embarrassing than asking for more money than the Executive Director makes. Not paying you more isn’t selfish contempt or disdain (most of the time). Many nonprofit executives are themselves mortified, horrified and ashamed that their staff are so poorly compensated—there may be just no other options. If you think you can make a case for a raise, you need to sell yourself as a revenue center within the organization. How do you create cash, in-kinds or efficiencies for the organization? The singular motto of the nonprofit is “We’re all in this together”, so you need to show where you stand in “together”. In larger organizations this can be more difficult—responsibilities are more insular and silted—but that’s still the approach you need to take.

• **Know the mission. **My boss tells the story once of laying down a $20 bill at a staff meeting and drawing names out of a hat; the first person to correctly recite their organization’s mission got the $20. It took her 3 staff meetings to pay out.
• Demonstrate strategic action. How have you actively advanced a part of the Strategic Plan of the organization? (And thus made the Executive Director look better.)
• Don’t forget benefits. Your take-home pay isn’t always the whole picture—there is substantial value (and diversity) in health insurance and retirement benefits. Do they provide lower co-pays or (hallelujah!) matching 401(k)s? You don’t realize the value until you need it. Maybe they could even contribute money towards personal development.
• **Stay mobile. **Worse comes to worst, the best time to look for a job is when you already have one. Sometimes the surest dose of reality is learning that you actually have it pretty good—and if you don’t that should be an even more concrete kick in the pants to find something new.

Ben Sheldon is Assistant Director of the CTC VISTA Project, a national organization that strengthens our public media infrastructure by building the leadership, resources, outreach and services of nonprofit organizations and associations.  He manages their AmeriCorps*VISTA program which recruits, places and supports VISTA members serving with media organizations.  Ben is a millenial and blogs on nonprofits, communications, and anything else that crosses his mind at http://island94.org

My roommate (a teacher) left open this week’s Newsweek with a movie review of the French film, The Class, that began with this quote, tattooed on one of the students and dubiously attributed to the Qu’ran:

If your words are less important than silence, keep quiet.

Which sounds suspiciously similar to the Buddhist quote:

Do not speak—unless it improves on silence

Trying to google through Christian quotations, I found little in the way of direct quotations, though lots of interpretation.

As a contemporary quote, I like Cloud Cult’s “The Deaf Girls Song”, off of The Meaning of 8:

Did you hear about the deaf girl
The one whose song’s gone number one
Three minutes of silence on the radio
It’s the best damn gift for everyone

I get a big grab-box of organic produce every week and last week I guess there was a bit of a mixup. I order it more for the variety and element of surprise (what should I cook with celery root?) than health or ideology, so the issue was more an opportunity to learn this fun fact:

It was brought to our attention last week that some of the Asian Pears we distributed were not organic. We should have caught it as the price lookup code or “PLU code” on the sticker label was a number “4” instead of the number “9”; all organic PLU codes begin with the number “9”. 

Of course, that your produce even comes with a PLU is a different matter…

The first day of February was warm and coming back from Super Bowl snack-shopping, I shot some videos. Enjoy.