The melody of chords in the key of life.
In music, great musicians are led to similar and even sometimes identical conclusions based on their ability to individually and innately understand choice in terms of good and not-so-good. I firmly postulate that great philosophers do the same in life. They know how to make great sounding chords for us to understand their general consensus on topics in the key of life while providing a top line that is intriguing, catchy, simple as well as unforgettable. This top-line provides us with a melody/framework that, if not original, most of the time is definitely and at very least unique/rare to us as a human race.
Like the greatest musicians, philosophers can take complexity that is far more than the majority could begin to understand and articulate it with a level of simplicity, precision, and authenticity that gains not only attention (good or bad) but sustainable recognition long after their expiration date.
The concepts are sometimes made so simple and digestible that their concepts are integrated/adopted while their source is forgotten. Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Tesla automotive, and Benjamin Franklin are 1-to-1 examples of individuals/entities presenting ideas and new concepts to the world for public recognition that aren’t theirs exclusively. Yet, they have received praise and recognition as the source.
It is not a hyperbolic statement to say that — not all — but a good amount of the individuals recognized as being at the top of their field didn’t get there alone. Nevertheless, the public eye (which doesn’t see truth) romanticizes these figures without the proper qualifications. While it is clear daily and in many ways that life is just as cruel as nature, it is important to note that within the unfairness is always the articulation of fact versus romanticism. Popularity, being the first or the biggest or the most well-known are romanticized notions. Popularity does not qualify as notable recognition. Who got there first is not a qualification to warrant remaining there. What does qualify romanticism in recognition are those that are the source — the other side — of what inspires and informs the powerful and well-recognized. Yet the public is only getting one side of the view. Hence: the public eye (singular). If the public had both eyes open, popularity wouldn’t be so inaccurate and incomplete.
The other side of Carl Jung as well as Sigmund Freud is Pierre Janet. The other side of Tesla automotive and/or Benjamin Franklin is Nikola Tesla. The other side of the internet is Alan Turing. While the internet has many innovators within its structure and its framework, the original source is Alan Turing. Turing’s innovations regarding how to think about development and developmental principles have long been forgotten. Most innovators are so consumed with recognition (as the public can see in multiple fields of study) that the proper due diligence of their concepts’ originality is not duly noted.
There is a duality in all things and, in my view, a trinity in all of us as beings. Without recognizing all three parts of a concept or new thought process, the recognition is incomplete. There is a mind, a body, and a spirit to everything that is in existence for us as a human race. Giving an identity to just the physical appearance (which is the popularity) and being void of the mind behind it or the spirit that creates it and brings it into this world is not just incomplete but unbalanced in its foundation. No one makes history alone.
Just because someone is technically advanced or sufficiently sound to be able to perform an act that they learned from its original source/an original source (or derived from the spirit and being of a certain culture) doesn’t mean that they did that all by themselves or can innovate themselves. Yes, they’re creative enough to do it in their own way. For that, they earn the credit and right to say, “I’m uniquely doing this so recognize me for that.” But the type of recognition matters. That’s what I’m qualifying here. We want to recognize what they contributed, but we want to recognize them according to their contribution — not give them attributes and/or credit they absolutely don’t have.
Whenever I’ve been asked, “what comes first, the chicken or the egg?” I say the chicken because an egg can’t make a chicken. I’m always focused on recognizing the source first because the source is plentiful. It’s more of an asset. Whereas an egg eventually could be a chicken, but it could have a different outcome. That’s what I believe is the missing link in the, “who knows what comes first?” thought experiment. I’ve always known innately because it’s all about the timing. The best asset is a fully formed chicken. I’ll get more with a chicken at that moment than what an egg may eventually become. It’s about the current value of things. This type of thinking separates a mind and a spirit from a performer. I believe a lot of performers would look at the chicken/egg question as a trick question because they’re not understanding the baseline of the current moment. The baseline of what is being asked is about what you value. Do you value the current tense of what you can offer from which you can derive value? Or are you someone that wants to play both sides and see what happens? Most play both sides because they don’t have a clear aim at anything in particular. They don’t know. You can see that in the majority of people’s lives in terms of their lack of thought process overall, which often is passed down to their children. There is no clear aim. It’s just a follower-type mentality. It’s based on the opposite of individuality due to an apprehension to offend anyone and the quest to be a good person/be viewed as a good person (or the unfocused approach to getting rich and having a lot of things to have that social currency that eventually leads nowhere).
While I think all three aspects of the mind/body/spirit are necessary, it’s incumbent on us as a society to improve our ability to evaluate and question what we see from a dualistic and more holistic perspective. We can choose this as opposed to the more common trend of getting enamored with one aspect of what we’re seeing. That singular focus is the body/specific entity represents something whose origins we never question. The public is not thinking about anything but what’s being presented. I think as the internet gets older and people are more informed, we’re heading in a new direction which I find encouraging. I’m simply considering the past and present tense of how fast internet larping and conspiracy get so out of hand so quickly because anything that can possibly make sense to people is somewhat true to them. This human tendency shows why the visible performers get so much credit without the duality of the origin of their concepts. Pre-internet, people simply believed whatever they saw. It’s no different today.
The triad applies to everyone, including me, and my abilities, approach, and multifaceted career in several different fields. While I am the mind and even the performer of some of these things I do in business, music, etc., the spirit of these things comes from my grandfather (Mr. C a.k.a. Edgar Douglas). He came from other percussionists with not just Jamaican but Scottish backgrounds. That influenced his eclectic taste and that spirit was instilled in my dad. From day one when my dad saw I was more into music like Nirvana, Bush, Bon Jovi, Steely Dan, Weather Report, and a lot of Latin and Afro music like Fela Kuti over Reggae or hip-hop, he let me be myself and was open. The spirit of what he got from his father and his father’s father and his culture is what drove me, so I’m not fully responsible for all I’m capable of performing at this stage. I’m not only a 4th generation percussionist, but the way I think and appreciate the world and humans as a whole is not merely derived from me. I’m simply getting to present it to the world. I did not do this by myself. I’m standing on the shoulders of absolute giants on both sides of my family: my mom coming from engineers and mathematicians and bankers and my dad’s lineage of creative, business-oriented entrepreneurship. They have fueled my ability to be able to perform and be as creative as I am, so I credit the source.
