Some famous quotes about heaven

Just to balance out yesterday's post--famous quotes about hell--here are some famous quotes about heaven. The different views of heaven and resulting quotes are as different as the individuals who have uttered them. That was true for yesterday's quotes about hell as well.

Heaven means to be one with God.

Confucius

Death and life have their determined appointments; riches and honors depend upon heaven.

Confucius

Our life of poverty is as necessary as the work itself. Only in heaven will we see how much we owe to the poor for helping us to love God better because of them.

Mother Teresa

Words without thoughts never to heaven go.

William Shakespeare

Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven.

William Shakespeare

The love of heaven makes one heavenly.

William Shakespeare

Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.

C. S. Lewis

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new.

Steve Jobs

The "kingdom of Heaven" is a condition of the heart - not something that comes "upon the earth" or "after death."

Friedrich Nietzsche

To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour.

William Blake

Heaven is under our feet as well as over our heads.

Henry David Thoreau

Pennies do not come from heaven. They have to be earned here on earth.

Margaret Thatcher

We ought to fly away from earth to heaven as quickly as we can; and to fly away is to become like God, as far as this is possible; and to become like him is to become holy, just, and wise.

Plato

Nothing but heaven itself is better than a friend who is really a friend.

Plautus

You have to go on and be crazy. Craziness is like heaven.

Jimi Hendrix

Heaven and hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad. But the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue.

David Hume

Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves - or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth.

Ayn Rand

If you are not allowed to laugh in heaven, I don't want to go there.

Martin Luther

A happy family is but an earlier heaven.

George Bernard Shaw

My home is in Heaven. I'm just traveling through this world.

Billy Graham

A man content to go to heaven alone will never go to heaven.

Boethius

Music is harmony, harmony is perfection, perfection is our dream, and our dream is heaven.

Henri Frederic Amiel

Blessed be childhood, which brings down something of heaven into the midst of our rough earthliness.

Henri Frederic Amiel

The true object of all human life is play. Earth is a task garden; heaven is a playground.

Gilbert K. Chesterton

You think dogs will not be in heaven? I tell you, they will be there long before any of us.

Robert Louis Stevenson

What some famous people have said about hell

I happened to run across this quote the other day--"Hell is other people"--and I didn't remember who had said it. So I googled it and found out that it was Jean-Paul Sartre who is the responsible party. Interesting quote--makes you wonder in what context he meant it. Was he surrounded by babblers and sycophants his entire life? If so, then I can imagine that would have been hell to a philosopher and thinker who required solitude in order to think and to write. Or was he just a miser with his affections and love, a man who hurt those who loved him? Because to say that hell is other people is really quite a drastic statement. If he was still alive, I'd ask him what he meant by this. But that's not possible. So I found some other famous quotations about hell. If nothing else, they make you think.

The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.

Dante Alighieri

If you're going through hell, keep going.

Winston Churchill

It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.

Buddha

Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory.

Abraham Lincoln

I don't like to commit myself about heaven and hell - you see, I have friends in both places.

Mark Twain

Hell is empty and all the devils are here.

William Shakespeare

The safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.

C. S. Lewis

I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.

Harry S. Truman

Paradise was made for tender hearts; hell, for loveless hearts.

Voltaire

I'm going to let God be the judge of who goes to heaven and hell.

Joel Osteen

Every man is his own hell.

H. L. Mencken

A man is born alone and dies alone; and he experiences the good and bad consequences of his karma alone; and he goes alone to hell or the Supreme abode.

Chanakya

Hell is a half-filled auditorium.

Robert Frost

I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way.

Robert Frost

Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.

Milton Friedman

War is hell.

William Tecumseh Sherman

Maybe this world is another planet's hell.

Aldous Huxley

Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions; it's walled and roofed with them. Yes, and furnished too.

Aldous Huxley

There is not a fiercer hell than the failure in a great object.

John Keats

Despair is the damp of hell, as joy is the serenity of heaven.

John Donne

To consider persons and events and situations only in the light of their effect upon myself is to live on the doorstep of hell.

Thomas Merton

If you want to study the social and political history of modern nations, study hell.

Thomas Merton

The mind is its own place and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.

John Milton

The road out

I’m often asked how I dealt with leaving my birth country for this one, especially since I did so as a young adult and not as a child. I answer—it was difficult to do so, but my situation was quite different than for many other foreigners here. I was not an immigrant or political refugee looking for a new life in a better place or an opportunist seeking materialistic gains. My decision to move was made carefully, but it was made in order to give a personal relationship that was still a seed, a chance to grow. I knew that if I did not give it that chance, that I would regret not doing so down the line. At the time I chose to move to Norway, my life was ready for change—both professionally and personally. There were a number of factors that came together in a type of synergy at that time, that made moving here the right thing to do. And over twenty years later, I can say that I don’t regret having moved from the USA to Norway since that budding relationship and my life generally changed in ways that have been mostly positive, challenging, and rewarding. But the past twenty years have not been a bed of roses either. Nothing good is ever achieved without struggle and frustration; that I’ve learned. I’ve also learned that nothing is ever handed to you in this life. At least that has not been the case for my life. It has rarely, if ever, happened that any road I’ve chosen has been an easy one initially. We all choose our respective paths to follow. Mine happen to be strewn with other types of challenges than if I had chosen to remain for the rest of my life in the town of my birth. If I had done that, I am sure that I would have faced other types of challenges. But that is not my life story. I had no idea when I was starting out in the work world that I would end up working and living in Europe.

The difficulties any foreigner faces when in a new country have mostly to do with learning the language and trying to understand the new culture that you find yourself in. Scandinavian culture is not very unlike American culture in the sense that we enjoy the same things—a materialistic way of life that does not lack for most things—food, clothing, shelter, vacations, cars, and luxury items, political freedom, family interest (focus on the nuclear family mostly), a mostly secular lifestyle, interest in books, movies, and other media, and many other things. It does not feel foreign to live here as it might have felt had I moved to a poor backward country or one that was a police state or totalitarian regime. When I go out to the malls here to shop, I could be anywhere in America at a big shopping mall. The only difference is the language spoken. So yes, that is a difficulty and it takes several years to learn to speak a new language. For some it may go faster; for me it did not. It is the subtleties in any culture—the unspoken codes of conduct at work and even in social situations, that also make living in a new country difficult. Some of those codes are impossible to crack, or if cracked, impossible to understand. I have given up trying to understand some of them here; I used about ten years doing so and after that I folded. I don’t think like a Scandinavian from the start point. I would have had to have been born here for that to have happened. So I believe in myself, in who I am as an American, am proud of my heritage and my roots, and have truly reclaimed my identity as an American living in a foreign country, despite all the problems in America, the crazy politics and politicians, the contradictions, the inequalities, the disparity between rich and poor, all those things. Scandinavian societies do not have such disparity between the rich and the poor, but there are other problems associated with most people having more or less the same standard of living. It might sound utopian to those who do not live here; it is not. It leads to an odd kind of social conformity, one that I am not particularly comfortable with. It also leads to a kind of complacency that is the result of knowing that the government will take care of most of your needs.

The biggest difficulty for me in living abroad is not being able to see my family and friends in the USA as much as I’d like. And even though I know that I wouldn’t see them all that often if I lived in New York now, it would be easier to do so because the physical distance between us would not be large. It is the possibility of doing so that I miss, perhaps the spontaneity associated with socializing. My annual visit to New York each year is a well-planned event; I start preparing for it many months ahead of time. I hope to spend more time in my country again when I retire; retirement is still years away, but it is not too soon to plan for it. And I am doing that, slowly but surely, so that it will be possible to visit with friends and family for longer times.

The fascination with Sherlock

There have been many actors who have played Sherlock Holmes in both movies and TV films/series over the past eighty or so years; Wikipedia provides a long list of them—too many to list here in this post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_who_have_played_Sherlock_Holmes. I grew up watching the classic Sherlock Holmes films from the 1940s with Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson. Basil Rathbone has defined the persona Sherlock Holmes for me for many years with his intelligence and authoritative demeanor. We used to gather as a family on Saturday evenings in front of our black and white TV set and watch Sherlock Holmes solve one mystery after another with his colleague Dr. Watson. Memorable films include The Hound of the Baskervilles (with a hound trained to kill) and The Pearl of Death (with a deformed killer known as the Creeper who broke the backs of his victims). All of the films were entertaining thrillers, but these two films stand out in my mind as the most frightening, especially for a child. But we apparently enjoyed being scared along the way to the solution of the crimes, and we looked forward to our Saturday evening movie experiences.

Jeremy Brett’s portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the TV series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes that ran from 1984-85 is also memorable; the series was quite detailed, gritty and realistic, especially in dealing with Holmes’ drug addiction and visits to opium dens. Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking from 2004 with Rupert Everett as Sherlock Holmes was quite entertaining; Everett’s Holmes was less arrogant and a bit more friendly. Guy Ritchie’s first foray into the world of Sherlock Holmes was in 2009 with his film Sherlock Holmes, with Sherlock played by Robert Downey Jr and Watson played by Jude Law. Of all the Sherlock Holmes films I’ve seen, this one has to be the most action-packed. It was one long action film interspersed with crime-solving and was enjoyable to watch, although the character of Holmes as played by Downey is completely different than most other portrayals I’ve seen; you will either like that or you won’t. I enjoyed Ritchie’s first Sherlock film but have not yet seen the second.

And then—a new Sherlock Holmes—a truly pleasant surprise, in the TV series Sherlock (2010-present). The actor who plays Holmes, Benedict Cumberbatch, owns the role. His Holmes commands attention with his fierce intelligence, arrogant air, offhandedness and condescending attitude toward people he thinks are stupid—all those things that make the detective great. He may actually end up surpassing Rathbone's portrayal of Holmes. His Holmes is quite likable, in the way that difficult and infuriating people often are. Watching him makes you realize that geniuses like Sherlock in the world are thinking at a rate of speed that none of us can match. Cumberbatch manages to impart that important aspect of Holmes’ intelligence. He is way ahead of most people around him. This series has moved Holmes and Watson to London in the present time, and that by itself makes for some interesting changes—the use of cell phones to text, call or to take pictures, as well as the use of computers—all of these aid in the solving of the crimes. Doctor Watson, as played by Martin Freeman, is also a smart man, if a bit slower in his reasoning. He is feisty when he needs to be and can hold his own with Holmes. Here’s hoping that the series can sustain audience interest and survive to entertain us for the next several years.

A little milestone

Today is the day that my blog reached a little milestone--15,000 page views! Thank you to all of you who read the blog, to those who comment, to those who have written to me personally--I appreciate each and every one of you, your interest and your input. As long as there are topics to write about, I will continue to blog, because I really enjoy writing A New Yorker in Oslo.

Sing-along

I attended a very enjoyable dinner party yesterday evening; a friend invited about fifteen of her good friends to share her birthday celebration with her. Get a group of women together, and you know the evening won’t lack for enthusiastic and interesting conversation, and it didn’t. But this evening ended up being a heck of a lot of fun in a whole new way. The hostess sings in a choir, as do a number of her friends. In other words, she loves to sing. So she invited us to a sing-along, in this instance, to the film The Sound of Music. In between eating dinner and dessert, we watched the film from start to finish and sang the different songs as they showed up in the film. We had been dealt out our respective roles, many of which overlapped with others at the party. For example, I was dealt out the singing role for Rolf, the nun, and Gretl, along with two other women at the party. I had never done this before, so naturally I was a bit skeptical (as I always am) to anything that might place me at the center of any unwanted attention. I also love to sing, but reserve it mostly for when I am puttering around at home alone or in the shower or in the typical places one might sing—mostly alone when no one is listening. I have been told that I have a good singing voice, but I don’t sing in a choir and am unlikely to do so at this point in my life. But I have to say that this sing-along experience was an incredibly uplifting and fun group activity, with no particular focus on any one person, and that made it all the more enjoyable. At different points, I found myself listening to us as we hit the high notes, and how our voices all soared in unison, and it was a rush. I sometimes get that feeling when I am in church and the entire congregation sings and the united voices lift you to a whole new place. It’s a wonderful experience and one that will move you out of yourself if you let it.

I was very young when I first saw The Sound of Music; seeing it again was a moving experience, because Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer and the children were wonderful to watch. All of us watching the film shared our memories of the time in our lives when we had first seen the film. Some of the women had been taken to the theater by their parents, some by their schools—but all of us had been touched by our original experience of the film. And I have to say that it was like being at a teenage slumber party again listening and watching grown women hoot, holler and comment when Maria and Georg kissed for the first time, or when the Baroness tried her best to keep Georg and Maria from being together. It made me realize that there is a common bond among women that transcends cultures, if allowed to surface, which is what this film was able to accomplish for us last night. There was a lot of laughing as well as singing, and it was all a great deal of fun. I’d love to do it again. 

Creatures of the night

Up late the other night—of course I regretted it the following day, but the reason I stayed up late was to watch the vampire film The Hunger from 1983 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085701/) on TCM. I can never really pass up an opportunity to watch yet another stylishly-made horror film, and TCM is a great channel to find all those kinds of classic films, horror or otherwise. I won’t say I was enthralled by the film, but it didn’t disappoint either—it had its moments. It is definitely a film from the 1980s—I read somewhere that a critic had said it was like watching a long MTV video—chic and stylish with cool music, but without much substance—that was the gist of it. The Madonna song Vogue came to mind when I was watching it. The actors and actresses (David Bowie, Catherine Deneuve, and Susan Sarandon) did a lot of posing for the camera, but that was the way things were done then. The film was about modern-day vampires in an urban setting, who frequented New York City nightclubs looking for potential victims. These vampires were unlike most of the vampires we’ve come to know about--they could tolerate the light of day, they murdered their victims with small knives shaped like Egyptian ankhs, and they could see their reflections in mirrors. The story had to do with David Bowie’s vampire John trying to find a cure for his rapid aging that had suddenly set in and that would doom him to eternal life without his vampire lover Miriam (Catherine Deneuve) who had made him a vampire in the first place. The film was probably controversial when it came out due to some graphic scenes of violence and sexual (lesbian) activity. I don’t recall much talk about this film from that time, nor do I remember that it opened in many theaters (according to IMDB it opened in 775 theaters nationwide in the USA, approximately 15 per state if it opened in all of them—that’s not many). Perhaps it was considered an ‘art film’, in which case it would have opened at one or two theaters in Westchester County where I grew up.   

I’ve seen many vampire films in my lifetime—starting with the House of Dark Shadows from 1970 directed by Dan Curtis, with Jonathan Frid as the vampire Barnabas Collins (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065856/), followed by Scars of Dracula and The Satanic Rites of Dracula (among several others) from 1970 and 1973 respectively (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067713/; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070634/) with Christopher Lee as the vampire (he made many Dracula films). These were followed by the original Nosferatu film from 1922 directed by FW Murnau with Max Schreck as a very scary Nosferatu (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0013442/), as well as Nosferatu the Vampyre from 1979 directed by Werner Herzog, with Klaus Kinski as Nosferatu (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079641/). I remember the New York Times review of the latter film talking about the furor in the Netherlands (where the film was partially shot) over Herzog’s wanting to release tens of thousands of rats for one of the scenes in the film.  Talk about the quest for realism on the part of a director.  

The classic Dracula from 1931, directed by Tod Browning, with Bela Lugosi (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021814/), and Dracula from 1979, directed by John Badham, with Frank Langella http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079073/, are very good films, as is Interview with the Vampire from 1994, directed by Neil Jordan, with Tom Cruise as Lestat (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110148/). But in my opinion, the best vampire film I’ve ever seen is the 1992 film Bram Stoker’s Dracula directed by Francis Ford Coppola (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103874/). I remember watching it for the first time when it came out and being totally drawn in by its mastery and haunting atmosphere. I’ve since seen it several more times, and each time I watch it I admire it more and more as a nearly-perfect Dracula film. Gary Oldman as Dracula was brilliant casting—he did an incredible job, as did Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins and all the others. It is the specific scenes in Coppola’s film that are unforgettable and haunting and that make it my favorite vampire movie—when Jonathan Harker (played by Keanu Reeves) arrives at Dracula’s castle and the shadow of the vampire precedes his entrance, Dracula crawling down the walls of the castle on one of his nightly outings, the appearance of the female vampires in the castle and their seduction of Jonathan, Dracula’s meeting with Mina, and so many more.

Besides Gary Oldman’s Dracula, I have to say that Jonathan Frid’s Barnabas Collins is my vampire of choice. I’m not a fan of the Twilight vampire movies; I saw the first film after reading the book and it was not for me, but I understand that many people do like it. I might have liked the series as a pre-teenager, but somehow I have the feeling that my entrance into the world of vampires was forever shaped by Dark Shadows. However campy the series might have been at times, it took itself seriously and has amassed a large number of fans through the years. I’m looking forward to Tim Burton’s version of Dark Shadows and Johnny Depp’s portrayal of Barnabas, but I doubt that anyone could ever surpass Jonathan Frid’s portrayal of Barnabas Collins.

Some people have all the luck!

Some lucky people in Norway got to see spectacular light shows last night–the Northern Lights made their appearance as a result of a lot of solar storm activity lately. We were told by the media that the Lights would be visible all over the country (true for the rest of the Northern hemisphere as well according to the media), so I was awake and ready with my camera, but Oslo had cloudy skies and little visibility–thus no Lights. So I have to be satisfied with looking at these gorgeous photos!! Time to plan a trip north to see the Lights! I want to experience them in person. I've realized lately that my particular interest as a photographer is the fascination with anything that has to do with light--the way it plays on water, in the sky, or the way it produces colors and contrasts, rainbows after a storm--all those things. 

http://nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nordland/1.7967958


And here is another link, this time to a video of the Northern Lights, filmed by Alister Chapman on the evening of January 24th in Tromsø, Norway. It's called Dance of the Spirits, and it's a very apt name--beautiful.


http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/solar-storms-spawn-hyperactive-aurora-boreali/?smid=tw-nytimesscience&seid=auto

The beauty of the Akerselva river in winter

Two short videos taken on Sunday January 22nd 2012 when I was out early in the morning walking along the Akerselva river. The first one shows the mallard ducks swimming in the icy river--you've got to love these birds. I love watching them. As I often say, birds rule. The second video shows the waterfall near Hønsa Lovisas house and the ice buildup and formations at the base of the falls. Pretty cool looking. I have always been fascinated by rivers in winter--especially when they freeze, either fully or partially. I remember back to my teenage days when I took pictures of the Hudson River (in Tarrytown, New York) that had almost frozen over. It was like watching a land of ice come to life. Very solitary, very beautiful.

Lean Mean Fighting Machine

Christine Koht, a Norwegian media personality and program leader, is also a columnist for A-magazine, Aftenposten’s weekend magazine. Her column this past Friday was about the Lean management philosophy, how it has invaded Norwegian workplaces, and the effect it has had on many employees, whom as she described, are just so tired of being told how to be better. She lectures and entertains at many different workplaces around the country, and described how many of the employees she meets in her travels are feeling these days about their workplaces (translated from Norwegian):

‘I travel quite a lot around this country, entertaining at different workplaces, and everywhere I go I encounter the same ideal—continuous improvement. Counting and measurements and endless documenting are presumably what it takes to find out how everything can always be better. But everyone is so tired of it. Doctors and plumbers, engineers and teachers--all of them are finding that their workdays and their job enthusiasm are being drained dry by the perpetual need to document everything they do’.  

I have to admit that this was the first time I had ever heard about this management philosophy. First it was New Public Management (NPM), now it's Lean. So I decided that it’s time to read up on these business philosophies that have taken over the workplace. I’ve already written a post on New Public Management. Actually, we're knee-deep in NPM in the public sector and rather stuck there, so how did Lean get a foothold? I am interested in these philosophies because I see what they are doing to workplaces. The first thing that came to mind when I saw the word Lean was the old expression ‘lean mean fighting machine’. And it seems that this management philosophy is all about reducing waste and continuous improvement, so that your company ends up ‘fit for fight’—a lean mean fighting machine in a competitive global economy. It seems to have started as a management philosophy for manufacturing—how to improve efficiency of production by focusing on waste reduction. For the life of me, I cannot imagine how this philosophy can be applied to public sector organizations. For one thing, it is the exact opposite of NPM as far as I can see. Correct me if I’m wrong, but NPM has only led to massive increases in layers of administration and administrative positions—too many chiefs and not enough Indians, in other words. So if Lean is now the management philosophy of choice—what possibilities exist to eliminate waste? Should the Lean business consultants, strategists and gurus start by ‘removing’ the very layers of administration that NPM set in place? Because anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that it is the exponential growth of administration that is clogging the system, reducing efficiency and causing waste. The administrators need to administrate and to control the employees who are doing the actual work. The numbers of actual workers are decreasing relative to the number of administrators set in place to administrate them.

I also see what these different trends in management philosophies have done to workplace leaders, how desperate some of them are to effect change, any change, in a panicked attempt to leave a legacy behind them when they go. They also have to be able to say to a new employer—‘I managed to implement this or that change in my former workplace, and it’s working very well. I can do miracles with your workplace if you only give me a chance’. Or I can at least imagine that this is what they are desperate to achieve, otherwise why do so many of them—men and women alike--look so harried and haggard? When you meet with them, they come up with yet another idea for how you can be better, how you can improve your workday, how you can best serve your workplace and those ideas are completely different than the ones they were so adamant about your accepting just a year ago. And when you remind them of what they insisted upon a year ago, they get irritated and don’t want to hear about the past. The past for them is the past—gone, non-existent (as though it never existed), passé, and a taboo topic of conversation. It’s all about relativeness (changing with circumstances) these days. When you remind them that you personally might want to learn from past mistakes, they don’t want to hear that either. They also don’t want to hear that you want to take your time now in making a decision that will affect how you perform your work duties for the next few years. They just want you to accept what they want you to accept—NOW. It doesn’t matter if they change their minds again in six months. 

When will workplace leaders realize that efficiency is the last thing that results from incessant poking and prodding and change? Employees work best and most efficiently in an environment that lets them do the job they are paid to do, in other words, in a stable and supportive environment. They work best in an environment where the infrastructure in place supports them in their quest to do a good job, rather than hindering them, as is often the case in overly-bureaucratic and overly-administrated environments. There is no stability in an atmosphere of constant change, in an environment that incessantly pokes and prods its employees at every turn in an effort to get them to produce more and to be more efficient. There are many employees who have done a terrific job, who have produced for their companies, and who are tired. Just plain tired—of being told they haven’t done enough, that they aren’t good enough, that they need to change, that they are resistant to change, that they are too set in their ways, or that they need to just ‘adapt’ to yet another way of looking at their job. What if the new management philosophy could be one with a laissez-faire focus, one that led to appreciation of employees and to company management which understood that employee competence and expertise are the reasons that employees were hired in the first place, which understood that ‘more and better’ all the time doesn’t lead to efficiency and that if employees are appreciated that they will produce in ways that a company could only dream of? What if companies understood that enough is enough and that better is often the enemy of good, and that more means never enough? Management should back off and let employees be. But that would mean treating employees like adults and not children. Are company managements up to that? Only time will tell.

I’m not arguing against all forms of self-improvement; I’m actually a proponent of self-improvement in the personal arena. By that I mean—striving to be the best person you can be in the situations in which you find yourself. We can always learn new ways of looking at things, always have new and different responses if we’ve learned from our mistakes. My problem is when self-improvement/job improvement is forced upon you by people who have little to no idea of what they’re doing and who have no idea of who you really are or of what you need in a workplace setting. So let’s see if I can get this right. If I need advice on how to be a better scientist, I will consult a highly-successful scientist, not an administrator. Likewise, if I need advice on how to be a better friend or spouse, I’ll consult people who have good track records in both departments or who work in the psychology and social work fields, but not an administrator. By documenting all that we do, administrators conclude that they know us and that they are competent enough to tell us how to do the jobs we were hired to do. But they are not. However, if I need help with balancing a budget sheet or with filling out a complicated form, I’ll consult an administrator. But that is very seldom. So perhaps these management philosophies are more about finding valid work for the administrators to do. The employees they are administrating know for the most part what they are doing and why, and how to reach their professional goals without administrative interference. The more time we spend on administrative tasks, the less time we have to work at our real jobs, and then productivity and efficiency fly out the window. 

A day in the life of a scientist

Dead tired this morning, but made it to work by the usual time. Started the day by walking to the main cafeteria to buy a cup of (regular) coffee. Can’t live without my coffee. Already had my espresso at home before we left for work. Latest research shows—coffee is good for you—three or four cups a day—perfect. Opened Outlook—checked my emails. One of them was a thank-you email from a granting agency in Singapore thanking me for reviewing two of their grant applications. I do that now—I get paid for it. Got started on answering my emails early, and got them out of the way. Trying to figure out the best way to formulate emails these days can take several hours for just a couple of them. Made a few phone calls. Arranged an examiner for my Master’s student who will have her exam in June—took all of about half an hour. Ecstatic! Wasn’t as easy three years ago when I had to find opponents for my PhD student. Frustrating then. Went and talked to one of the women in the pathology department who is the administrative leader for the technicians there. Talked about the logistics of a project that needs technical help from the department. One of my jobs now—to coordinate external and internal research projects that require routine technical help. Went online to get price information for two items that needed to be ordered. Went to the secretary who enters the orders into the computer. Chatted for a while. Have decided that nice is the way to be; everything goes more smoothly when you treat others well. Don’t care if the rest of the world thinks it’s not efficient. Can honestly say that I've been nice to others most of the time. Worked through lunch doing my consulting job. On Twitter checking out all the updates. What would I do without it? Better than Facebook in so many ways. So much info on social media, so little time. 

Started working after lunch on analyzing some statistical data for my student’s project—realized I had made so many mistakes the first time I filled in the data tables. Why? I was dead tired and when you are dead tired you shouldn’t be working at the computer filling in data tables. Couldn’t understand why the graphs looked so odd afterwards—huge standard errors. Now I know. Solved that problem. Moving right along. Did a literature search on microRNAs—they’re what’s hot now besides stem cells. Feeling the pressure to conform again. Maybe I’ll get more grant support that way. Can I do like the others? We’ll see at grant time in May when I start writing them. Printed out four review articles on microRNAs. Went back to working on the statistical data. Playing around with grouping the data in different ways to produce different plots. Saw some interesting differences between untreated and treated samples—there might be a story after all. Ecstatic again! It’s not often that happens. Most of the time—balloons get punctured. Started dreaming about the experiments I want to do. Usually do this whenever lab work goes well. When it goes badly, I want to go home, crawl into bed and pull the covers over my head. Saved the statistical tables in one file, emailed a copy of it to my home email, and decided that for once I will look at it during the weekend. But right now, glad it’s Friday. Monday it starts all over again……..

The desire to write

The desire to write grows with writing.

— Desiderius Erasmus

There was a time in my life, a long time ago when I was in grammar school, when the mere mention of writing an essay for a class exam would strike terror in my mind and heart. The teacher would hand out those little blank blue essay books, reserved for the privilege of exam time when we would have to write out the longer answers to exam questions, or write the dreaded essay. All I remember is that my brain went blank; I froze and could not for the life of me come up with one essay idea to write about that I thought was even remotely creative. I could not write on cue, with someone standing over me or in front of the room, telling me ‘time’s up’ after one hour. Even the memory of it today makes me flinch. I remember struggling to find an idea, any idea, and wasting precious time trying to find the perfect idea. By the time I came up with an idea worthy (in my mind) of writing about, I had to rush through to get it finished on time. I am surprised that I ever did as well as I did; looking back, I’m guessing that my teachers knew that I tried hard, and that since I was good in all my other subjects, they cut me some slack.

I was no good then (or now) at performing on cue, in the same way that I am no good at coming up with snappy retorts or good arguments on cue, unless I know the person I am bantering back and forth with/discussing with and unless we have a certain level of understanding with each other. It wasn’t until I started high school that I got interested in writing for the fun of it, and that started in an English class taught by an excellent teacher, who remains a friend to this day. He loved literature and books, and it shone through. He loved teaching and he loved to tell us about what he read, or he read it to us—poetry, snippets of a short story, a newspaper article. It didn’t matter. If he was jazzed about something, he shared it with us. That’s a good teacher. He encouraged us to write, and it didn’t matter what we wrote—poetry, prose, essays, plays—all of it mattered to him. Because if we wrote, he was happy. When I re-read most of my early poetry, I cringe. But some of those early poems were good. That taught me an important lesson—the 99:1 lesson. For every 100 things you attempt creatively, 99 will not pass muster and 1 will be good to excellent. So I am happy if one of 100 poems I’ve written is good. But that shouldn’t discourage us, because that’s how the creative life is. Heck, that’s how life is in general. It’s the same way in research science, perhaps even more so. You can perform many experiments to test out many ideas, but perhaps only one or two will be worth following up and writing about. Science, like writing, requires patience and perseverance. It’s not about quitting at the first sign of trouble. It’s about not getting bowled over by the endless rejections. It’s about having a good cry when your work gets rejected or your experiments fail for the umpteenth time and then getting back up on the horse. Lately, the scientific horse has less appeal to me than the creative writing horse. But that’s just where I am these days, and it will have to do.

The early lessons in grammar and high school shaped me. I persevered in my overall studies, and ended up in science. But I continued to write, all the way through college and graduate school, my first job (that had a lot of dead time in the lab; I wrote poems on scraps of paper), all the way up to the present time. I wrote poetry—tons of it. I wrote short stories. I started several novels. I tried to publish a book of my poetry; it was rejected by a major publishing house in New York, but they actually did read the poems and picked out the ones they liked and told me why. That helped me. I didn’t get back a crass review like we risk and often get each time we send a research article to a scientific journal for review by our ‘peers’. It’s hard to hear for the umpteenth time that ‘your article is unfortunately too descriptive and would have been better if you had done the same experiments in five additional cell lines’. Your heart sinks when you read these words, because just doing the experiments you did in two or three cell lines might have taken two years. So how many years can you spend on one piece of work, making it better, making it perfect? When there is no such thing as perfection, when we know that we cannot achieve perfection on this earth? We have to draw a line somewhere, have to know where to stop. As one teacher said to me very early on ‘better is the enemy of good’. What we do can always be better. A better perspective may appear years on down the road. But we can’t go back and change what we did even when we know that the new perspective might be more correct, more fitting, or more relevant. Done is done, published is published.

The desire to write does grow with writing. It also grows with feedback. Every time someone comments on something I write—whether or not they agree with what I wrote—if they tell me it was well-written, I want to continue writing. The feeling of having touched people, having reached them, having stimulated new thoughts or feelings—that is a large part of what makes me want to continue writing. But mostly, the desire to write is innate—it’s always been there and always will be there. It just had to be set free, and it took one excellent teacher to do that for me. I can read a book or a magazine or watch a movie now, and ideas flood my brain. I start thinking—I can write about this or that. I just need to remember the idea. That is a fear—not remembering the idea or ideas, not remembering a scenario or a formulation. You need to strike while the iron is hot. Ideas fade from memory. It pays to write them down somewhere; so that your memory gets jogged the next time you read what you wrote. But just like we will never write the perfect novel or essay, we will never have a perfect thought or a perfect retrieval system for thoughts. That is another lesson about being human—we must take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves, in the moment that they present themselves. If there truly is a collective unconscious and I believe there is, the pool of wisdom, mythology, thoughts and ideas that abide there will perhaps make the rounds another time and filter into our brains again. But that could take years, if it happens at all. In the meantime, it’s best to jot ideas down, and then to get started writing about them. It leads to somewhere good.

Be careful what you wish for

Whenever I look at the statistics for the blog posts I’ve written, I find that posts about modern workplaces are among the most popular. I guess this shouldn’t surprise me, because we spend a good portion of our lives in our workplaces, so it’s not strange that we want to both understand and feel a part of them. I’ve spoken to many different people lately, both here in Norway and in the USA, and the thoughts, complaints, and experiences they share mirror my own. There have been huge changes in our workplaces just during the past ten years. It seems to me as though they have happened gradually, but the overall effect has been jarring. And if I am honest, I know that with each change that occurs in my own workplace, I am pushed out of my comfort zone yet again. The time allotted for engaging in and experiencing a new comfort zone gets shorter and shorter. The idea I suppose is that we’re not supposed to ‘get comfortable’—the new way of thinking is that it’s bad for productivity and efficiency. Modern workplaces are about change—change at any cost, change for change’s sake, change for the sake of modernization, change to meet the needs of the future, change to improve the quality of workplace life for employees, change to deal with an aging employee population—there may be many reasons for change. After having been pushed and prodded for the past several years, I am finally awake to what is going on around me, and I find that I am beginning to get some kind of overview, a bird’s eye view as it were, on the whole thing. But I am a long way from understanding it.

What I can surmise from all the changes is that many of them are about control—controlling huge organizations, be they universities, hospitals, corporations—it doesn’t matter. The growth of administration to effect this control has led to micromanagement and dissection of all that we took for granted before, all that functioned without us really knowing how or why. And since it functioned, we really didn’t have to know how or why it did. We trusted that this or that particular system (ordering, accounting, invoicing, archiving) was run by people who knew what they were doing, just as we knew what we were doing in our own spheres. It was fine to ‘take each other for granted’, respect each other’s differences, and go on about our daily work lives. Since the ultra-business people with their new management trends have taken over, we are forced to acknowledge their presence, forced to interact with them on a daily basis. They want us to know they are there—not that they are there to serve us; rather that we are there to serve them. They want to be acknowledged for all they do and they want us to know that they are in charge. So now we know. Now we know the answer to the old joke—how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb? How many people does it take to order a computer, or three items needed for work, or to create an invoice, or to create and fill out a work order so that eventual work can be planned? An easy answer is now six or more people, if you’re lucky. Administration grows exponentially. I’m guessing that the jobs of the future are in business administration. Young people should take notice.

Many of the changes are also about creating a lack of accountability. What do I mean by this? You can no longer relate personally to one individual who might be able to help you. The impersonal shield as I call it goes up the minute you ask to speak to one person who might know the answer to your question. You must rather deal with six or more people whose names you will never remember. And that’s the point. Or if you get an email from one of the six, it is with a cc: to the other five, so that you will never know with certainty that the person who wrote to you is the person you should deal with in the future. In this way, no one person is accountable; no one person can be blamed if a problem should arise. But this also means that no one person can receive the honor for a job well-done. They must all share it communally, like it and keep quiet if they don’t.

This lack of accountability is also part of what I call the dilution effect. Call it spreading out the blame, the praise, the responsibility, the actual job tasks—whatever may be involved. No one person can be responsible for one specific job anymore—that would be tantamount to giving full control to one individual, and that cannot be tolerated in modern workplaces, because that would give one person autonomy and a sense of well-being. So the job is diluted out, which leads to a thinning-out of its effectiveness, much like what happens if you dilute the concentration of a medicine that might help you—if it’s too dilute, it loses its effectiveness. I don’t blame the people who sit in these positions—they are told what to do by their superiors. But it’s a sorry state of affairs we’ve reached when high levels of competence and expertise are no longer encouraged. What’s rather encouraged is team-playing , sharing the expertise and diluting out one’s competence and accepting that it should be this way. What happens to a company or to a society when competence is diluted out in this way? Can we trust that teams of people with limited information about their individual jobs can fly, drive or manage the planes, trains, or companies of the future, respectively? Personally, I want to fly in a plane that I know is in the hands of fully-competent individuals, so that if something happened to two of the three pilots, the remaining one would be fully-competent to tackle the situation alone. Ditto for a train. Ditto for a company.  

What is our role in creating the current situation? I wonder. The old adage ‘be careful what you wish for, you might get it’ comes to mind. Have we wished for some of this? I think the answer is yes. I think unwittingly, every time we said that we wished there was a more defined system for this or that, every time we worshipped on the altars of productivity and efficiency, every time we wanted to give up some autonomy because it was too tiring to think or do for ourselves---we were wishing for someone to come along and take control for us. Call it a collective wishing. We may have bought into the business philosophies that talked about how much more effective everything would be after a huge merger. We wished for that effectiveness. It seemed like a real solution, even when we were already productive—we wanted more. But nothing that gets to be the size of a bloated whale or a huge lumbering dinosaur can be effective. Bigger is not always better. Is it always wanting more, better, bigger that will destroy us? Or turn us into bloated whales and lumbering dinosaurs? We are not meeting the needs of the future in this format, that’s for sure. 

Workplace haikus

Yet another change

Be still my tired heart and brain

Smile grin and bear it.

Old adage says keep

Friends close enemies closer

Good advice for now.

Another meeting

Lots of chiefs few indians

Too many leaders.

Thinking back to when

Free speech and thought were valued

Not controlled by prigs.

Administrators

Abound about me rabbits

Multiplying fast.

Future vision goals

Carousel of illusions

How to create them?



copyright 2012 Paula M. De Angelis

To forgive and move on

The Norwegian writer Niels Fredrik Dahl wrote an interesting article for this past Friday’s A-magazine (the weekend magazine for the newspaper Aftenposten) about the daughter of Anna Wahlgren, ‘a Swedish author, lecturer, child rearing expert and mother of nine’ as it says on her Facebook page. The daughter—Felicia Feldt—is angry at her mother and has published a new book that deals with her growing up years and how much she hates her mother. According to Feldt, her mother did not practice what she preached to the outside world—she partied hard, drank a lot, and was abusive to her nine children, among a number of other unpleasant behaviors. Her book has attracted a lot of attention; Anna Wahlgren apparently has no desire to comment on her daughter’s allegations.

Dahl writes, and I quote (translated from Norwegian)—‘We live with a mentality and in a time when reconciliation cannot happen fast enough. Anything else than mild, manageable grief and the desire to forgive is seen as a backward detour, an inadequacy. You are not allowed to be angry, to think about revenge, or to scream’. He ends his article by asking ‘What if you are Felicia Feldt?’

Indeed. What if you are? What if you are someone who is angry and bitter, who hates the person who mistreated you? What if you cannot forgive immediately? What right does society have to judge you? What if you bottle your anger on a daily basis because you know that society does not tolerate it or your grief? I think Dahl brings up some really interesting points. I am not sure if he is just referring to Scandinavian society when he says that we live in a time when reconciliation cannot happen fast enough or that intense grief or anger or the lack of a desire to forgive are seen as personal weaknesses. I applaud his bringing this topic up. It is about time that someone did. The past ten or so years in Norwegian society have convinced me that he is right. We are encouraged to forgive (no matter what), to communicate, to dialog, to negotiate, to not be judgmental, to not be angry, to smile, to ‘get beyond’ whatever it is that is bothering us, ad nauseum. Getting past the unpleasantness can also include the death of a loved one or our own illnesses. We should ‘get on with our lives’. But what if you cannot do all of these things? Or what if you cannot do them fast enough? And what is fast enough? Who can define that for another person? Who would dare?

I know from personal experience that forgiving a person who has wronged you can take many years. I had to learn the hard way that anger and hatred are valid emotions, that you cannot ignore them or sweep them under the rug. I had to learn to face my anger and hatred. I had to learn to understand that my inability to express anger as a child and teenager had ripple effects in my early adulthood—I was betrayed by someone who ought to have known better since he called himself a Christian. The fact that I loved and trusted this person did not seem to matter much to him. The lesson I learned, I am glad I learned when I was in my early 20s instead of in middle age. It would be harder to bounce back now. It took me years to learn how to forgive him. I didn’t understand what was involved in forgiving another person at that time. I honestly didn’t think it would be possible or that it would ever happen. It was possible and it did happen—albeit many years later—after a lot of reading about how to tackle anger, how to express it, when to express it, what forgiveness is, what it involves, and so much more. Anyone who thinks learning how to deal with negative emotions is trivial, is wrong. It does not happen overnight, no matter how much wishful thinking is involved. Society wants quick fixes for everything that is broken—with no mess, no fuss, and no drama. The question is how did it get to be this way, and why is this preferable to an honest reaction and to living as honest an emotional life as possible?