|  |
 |
|
OPINION: A New Era of Prosperity |
Teddy Herzog | 2/5/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our little town of Pagosa Springs is on the verge of a major shift — from mere survival into a completely new era of prosperity.
Can we kill off the shift? Maybe. But that's not my recommendation.
Pagosa Springs is, in so many ways, a blank canvas upon which the future has yet to be written.
I imagine a few readers might now mutter, "What are you talking about? There is no new era of prosperity."
But once we "hit the bottom" economically, things will only appear to be getting better after that. That bottom, I predict, is almost getting to be within sight.
Some people and businesses in Pagosa Springs have folded. Some have yet to fold and leave. All the while, new plans for a better tomorrow continue to be laid out and acted upon.
What does the future hold for Pagosa? Anything is possible from here.
"Being realistic is the most commonly traveled road to mediocrity", says "A" list actor Will Smith. He says, "It is unrealistic that you can flip a switch and the light will come on. It is unrealistic that you can bend some metal and then fly it across the ocean."
 Actor Will Smith credits his Hollywood success with not being the best or the smartest but by outworking anyone else in Hollywood. He does not settle for being average or good enough. By taking a stand to be the absolute best that he can be, Smith then follows through on that commitment by taking massive action.
"Skill is developed only by hours and hours and hours of beating on your craft."
In our current culture, the American work ethic now competes with two other philosophies: (a) get away with anything that you can to become rich, or (b) blame somebody else and play the victim as a substitute for ever rising above mediocrity.
One game of popular culture is called "blame, shame and guilt". It is the background conversation to the way that life shows up for us on a daily basis.
"Blame, shame and guilt" fall into a world view where you will also find "I am right and you are wrong". The right/wrong game is very popular. The prevalence of the right/wrong game is obvious if you stop and listen for it. But it is a background conversation, in that most of the time most of us don't distinguish it.
But "right" and "wrong" are judgments. They are assessments of other people. They are ungrounded assessments of other people.
Who is the "right" team to win the Superbowl? Is the other team truly "wrong"?
Is it right or wrong to have the viewpoint of a conservative Republican? Some people will say "right" and some people will say "wrong". Why is that? Because, you might say, "the other people are totally wrong".
But only in a world where it is you against me.
In a world of you AND me, it is possible that both the viewpoints of the conservative Republican and the liberal Democrat can exist side by side. In fact, it is a law of physics that any point of view must have its polar opposite point of view.
In a world view of "you OR me", someone must "win" and someone must "lose".
In a world view of "you AND me", both points of view can be embraced. Both points of view are valid. Both are based in the actual experiences of different people.
In the world view of "you OR me", resignation and cynicism must be present. "The world has always been a dog eat dog place. That is just the way that it is." "Politicians will always lie." "My spouse will never truly listen to me." "Same crap, just a different day." In the world view of "you OR me", there is not much possibility for anything to change. The collision of my opinion against your opinion keeps you and I stuck pushing hard and resisting each other.
The world of possibility occurs with a point of view of allowing "what is" to be what is. I allow that I have the house that I have. I allow that my mate is the way that she is. I allow that someone has a different perspective on what the U.S. Senate should do about health care.
It's not do I "agree" or "disagree". It is not that the other person is "right" or that the other person is "wrong". What it is, is that I allow the other person to be who they are and I allow that their perspective is equally as true for them as my perspective is for me.
The word is "empathy". It comes from the Greek word "empatheia" meaning affection or passion.
What did I just say? Is it possible that my being empathetic to others might have something to do with an ability to live passionately? Is it possible that the lack of empathy towards others leads to a lack of connection with others — which results in a lack of passion?
Is it possible that the failure to live a passionate life is directly tied to living a life of mediocrity?
So, how can I say that Pagosa Springs is on the verge of a major shift from mere survival into a completely new era of prosperity? Because we have passionate leaders who are working towards the future of prosperity. Mind you that I don't equate "leaders", necessarily, with the ones who hold elected office — unless they happen to be both. The "leaders" are the ones who actually move the community conversation forward towards a passionate vision for the future.
We have people meeting, talking and planning who have no fancy titles or special advantages. We do have many elected leaders who see the inherent prosperity that our Town of Pagosa Springs deserves. The word "deserve" comes from the Latin "deservire" which means "to serve diligently". This suggests that those that "deserve" great financial prosperity are those that "serve diligently" other people.
In our case, our community's financial prosperity (or lack thereof) is directly tied to how well we "serve" the public who might have an interest in visiting our little mountain town ... and how well we serve entrepreneurs who might like to set up business here. Or how well we serve a young family who may wish to live here.
National Geographic published in September 2008 the "Best Places to Live and Play in the Rocky Mountains" and location number 9 is Pagosa Springs.
That is something that other people say about us. But, what do we say about us?
What do we each individually tells ourselves? What do we tell each other? What is the conversation that we are — consciously or unconsciously — about the future? What is the future that we are creating today — in our speaking?
I love what I just heard Dr. Ginger Grant say on Youtube.
"When you go home tonight, or the next time you see your partner, say, "You are really good in bed, but ...' and then give them a list of performance criteria that needs improvement.
"Or, tell your partner simply, 'You are really good in bed and this is what I love about what you do.' And then notice the difference in performance."
The same psychology works here in our community.
As Harold Whitehall, a professor of English, writes in Webster's Dictionary, "Language is, in fact, the predominant factor in the social organization of humanity. Its real existence lies not so much in the printed book, not even in a dictionary such as this, as in the sense of community or community of feeling of those who habitually use it."
Are we creating a future that we can be passionate about? Or is someone to blame?
It is a law of physics — not a guideline, not a suggestion, but a law. Just as surely as it is night on one side of the planet and daytime on the other side, every idea must carry with it the opposite view. Both are equally true. I state, with evidence, that Pagosa Springs is on the verge of a new era of prosperity. Someone else must state, with evidence, that Pagosa Springs will never be prosperous.
Both points of view are valid. Both points of view exist as possible outcomes. I am not right. I am not wrong.
Which path will I choose? |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|