The Dead-Curious Cat and the Joyless ImmortalPosted: 14 March 2013
Alone among the curious animals (though this seems like a conceit that more research might invalidate), we seem to be curious about clearly useless things. Or at least, things that have no obvious and immediate use. Humans seem to frequently poke at things that yield returns, if at all, only generations later. And often in ways unsuspected by those who do the poking.
We stare at the stars, we peer through microscopes, we climb mountains and we dive to the ocean floor.
This behavior, so natural to humans, is incomprehensible to human organizations. So things like space programs or other pure curiosity driven efforts have to be justified by politicians on the basis of “will improve life here on earth through the discovery of new materials and advances in medicine.” This is probably the mother of all idiotic fictions. Fortunately, we don’t seem to require our institutional fictions to be credible. Merely sufficient to stop conversations we don’t want to have.
There is an interesting symmetry here. Organizations naturally try to avoid pain — the pain of business model obsolescence or national decline for instance – through institutionalized “curiosity.” They find joy-seeking unnatural and in need of justification (hence the paradoxical notions of “efficient” innovation with high “yield” or “impact” and the relentless war on waste).
This has even been turned into a depressingly banal formula for innovation: what pain are you seeking to relieve?
For humans the reverse is true. Curiosity driven by pain-aversion is unnatural, but curiosity driven by joy-seeking is natural and requires no further explanation. Efficiency is the last thing on our minds when we are being curious. The concept does not even apply: efficiency pre-supposes a goal. Waste is pain in the efficient pursuit of goals.
It’s a small (anti-epicurean) extract from a long article entitled “The Dead-Curious Cat and the Joyless Immortal”. There’s much to enjoy here, even if it is much too long and I don’t agree with everything. (The author flits from topic to topic like a caffeinated bee. It is clear that Vencat has one of those creative minds which intuitively makes connections, and which will quickly ‘yes-and’ its way from a simple premise to a Grand Theory of Everything.)
This part of the article resonated with me, because it reminded me that Luke & Michael is joy-oriented, rather than a goal-oriented, organisation This approach recognises the risks and fears inherent in its activities, yet proceeds joyfully anyway. To begin with an intended outcome and work towards it is to attempt to focus on efficiency: the minimisation of risk and fear.
It is not easy to build up this kind of relationship, but I personally find it useful to indulge the curiosity of “Luke & Michael” as a unit rather than Luke’s personal enthusiasms or Michael’s private passions. If we appear to be headed in particular direction – and it seems we are – then neither of us is leading us there. This is what makes our discoveries all the more joyful.