Michael Di Lauro

Someone—just the other day—asked me about my book, “What’s it about?”

My answer, I thought, was catchy, “It’s a story of hope, happiness and making your dreams come true.”

Then I said, “It’s a novel that explores creative alternatives to the common, mundane, Work-Success-Retirement formula.”

Ahem.

I was kinda proud of myself.

Work-Success-Retirement formula.

Has a nice ring, doesn’t it?

And, while I like the label, I’m not, to be honest, at all fond of what it represents.

What I mean is, I’m not fond of a formula that says, “Work hard. Become successful. Retire.”

Why not?

Look at it this way.

Is there something you love doing? Music, maybe? Photography, perhaps? Cooking, conceivably?

Whatever it is you love, when you’re doing it, are you looking forward to the day that you can stop (retire from) doing it?

Not too bloody likely, right?

You’re doing it because it’s fun, because you love doing it, because it’s who you are,

And you, likely, don’t want to entertain the thought of stopping.

Now, I know what you’re thinking too.

You’re thinking, “Hang on, we’re talking about work, and work isn’t something I love doing.”

But, what if work could be like that?

What if your career—your livelihood—was derived from something you loved doing?

Wouldn’t that be cool?

And that’s what the book addresses. It holds—within an amusing and compelling story about two people on a park bench—real-world, workable solutions for taking control of your career, your future, your life.

Now, before you dismiss me (and my idea), do me a favour.

Think about people you know, or you read about, or you see on TV, who make a living at something they love.

And think of those people—people well into their 60s, 70s or even 80s—who can’t dream of stopping. Won’t think of quitting. Won’t entertain the thought of retirement.

What makes them different?

(And it’s at this point that I finally get to, ahem, the point).

For months, I was searching for one word—one catchword, one byword, one slogan, one mantra—that explains, defines and illustrates what it is about those everyday people—those chefs, those journalists, those tailors, those musicians—who will never quit doing what they do.

And, after a long search, after scrolling, in mind, through an index of catchy one-word candidates, I found  (at last!) the mot-juste.

And that word is; Passion.

That’s the difference.

That’s why there are people who go to work, every day, and who refuse to stop going to work every day.

Because their lives—and their livelihood—are filled with passion.

They Pursue Passion

They Experience Passion

They Own their Passion

They Communicate Passion

They Live a Life of Passion—every day.

And you can too.

All you need to do, is to

Pursue passion.

Ideas? Suggestions? Questions? Please leave a comment.

• • Comments [0]
  • Tags [How to live a happy life, Perception]
  • Categories [About the NPV of Life]

Frank Mundo the book columnist for the LA Books Examiner asks some pretty tough questions. Frank just reviewed my book (and a rather nice commentary too—I’ll post it soon. In the meantime, you can read it here).

He then followed up his review with some intriguing interview questions.

There was one question, though, about art versus commercial success, that really hit home.

That question, in fact, got me to thinking about this…

Have you heard of Schrödinger’s cat?

Erwin Schrödinger was a physicist who, pondering the matter of quantum mechanics, contemplated the possibility of a cat being both alive and dead. At the same time.

You see, one of the tenets of quantum science is that it might just be possible for an element (a particle, an atom, a molecule) to exist in all possible states, all at the same time.

Which, I suppose, led Schrödinger to wonder if that might, perhaps, apply to a cat—could it be both alive and dead?

Which, I suppose, makes most of us cringe (or scoff) at the absurdity of it all.

Which, however, led me to wonder—if quantum science is correct—if there can be more than one outcome, is anything, in fact, mutually exclusive?

Which, of course, remained somewhat rhetorical as a question, because to my knowledge, there hadn’t been any real evidence that quantum science was correct.

Until I saw a New Scientist piece, retweeted by Mike Cane, that speaks of a laboratory experiment in which a strip of metal was made to both oscillate and not oscillate at the same time.

Eureka!

Can it be true?

If a strip of metal can be made to simultaneously move and not move, is it true that the concept of mutual exclusivity exists more in our minds than in fact?

Further, if that’s true, is it also true that, in our everyday lives, we often arrive at decisions based on a concept—that of mutual-exclusivity—that is outdated and erroneous?

I mean how often do we believe that it has to be A or B, This or That?

Even worse, think of how often we frame those mutually exclusive choices in one of two ways: i) desirable but risky, ii) undesirable but safe.

And, think of how often we put ourselves in a position of choosing between; Something we want to do versus something we have to do. Or Something that’s meaningful but unprofitable versus something that pays well but sucks the creativity right out of us.

Or…..as Frank put it in his interview question, How do you reconcile art with commercial success?

All to say that maybe, just maybe, the question shouldn’t be, Should I choose this or that?

Maybe the question should actually be, How can I get both?

And, maybe, that’s exactly what Schrödinger meant.

Questions? Ideas? Suggestions? Please leave a comment.

• • Comments [2]
  • Tags [How to live a happy life, Perception]
  • Categories [About the NPV of Life]