Frank Lloyd Wright: A Modern Renaissance Man

Perhaps no greater Renaissance man has been cited in American history than Thomas Jefferson. He wrote on the native plants of his country, Virginia, ran a plantation, designed buildings, founded a university, surveyed land,  was the head of state in Virginia, wrote a declaration of independence, and was the third president of the new American Union. More than two centuries after Mr. Jefferson, however, a cleft had become well-ensconced in American society between being an intellectual and a practitioner. The typical lawyer or physician, who holds two undergraduate degrees due in part to the political sense that a well-rounded citizenry makes a good electorate, has scant interest in intellectual endeavor. Indeed, one might even say that the “professions” place scant value on such activity; it is not “real work” or of the “real world.” The disdain is palpable, particularly in among the self-righteous in America. Yet Mr. Jefferson was able to bridge this gulf; so too can we. More contemporary examples can be cited to illustrate the mere possibility. The requisite delimiting "pruning" self-discipline might come as a surprise to people who presume that Renaissance breadth is borne of a wayward inability to "stay put."

When it was announced in 2012 that Frank Lloyd Wright’s archive was to be moved from his foundation to Columbia University and the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, it was reported that the architect had some six hundred manuscripts, as well as more than 23,000 drawings and forty large-scale architectural models and more than 300,000 pieces of correspondence. He also had a formidable art collection, though it would stay with the foundation. The number of manuscripts is what caught my eye. How many manuscripts is a leading lawyer or physician likely to written, even in his or her own field of work? What was behind Wright's foray into writing?

It can be said that Wright was a genius. In a world populated by victorian houses, he saw something very different. Seeing something different (having that genius) might have been enough to stir the jealousy of the city bosses in his native Madison in Wisconsin—they twice ignored the results of the referendums (which they wrote!) to ok the construction of a city building designed by the famous architect. Genius, however, does not account for Wright's foray into writing; rather, he must have valued the endeavor and sensed that he could do it very well. Even though he could have rested on his architectural laurels, he wanted to excel beyond his native fauna, and he was willing to put forth the effort.

Frank Lloyd Wright's "Falling Water" house.           FLW Fdn Archives/NYT

Similarly, the famous  clothing designer in the E.U., Karl Lagerfeld, came to excell at more than one field. Specifically, from having taking pictures of the models wearing his designs, he branched off into photography in its own right late in his career (instead of taking retirement), even though he could have rested on the reputation of his clothing line. He gained a reputation as a photographer from publishing a book of his photos taken at the French palace.

It is not that a genius in a field feels entitled to venture onto other fields as if doing so is of value in itself. Rather, there must be a sense of being able to extend one’s excellence without sliding onto mediocrity. This does not necessarily mean that the two fields are related. Excellence can be found in a disparate discipline. Yet this does not mean trying anything. Even within one's native field, one must limit oneself to what one can do well.

Being willing to let go of what is beyond oneself is part of being able to extend one’s excellence. The director of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, for example, was willing to give up most of the valuable archive because he recognized that Columbia and the museum were better-fitted to house it. “It’s what guarantees the deepest impact, the highest level of conservation and access in perpetuity, said Sean Malone. “The potential for new audiences far outweighs the personal desire to have it close by.”  All too often, people feel a clinginess to what they have, or want to have something both ways. We want to retain our cake and eat it too. In being willing to give up something valuable out of a recognition that another institution would be better suited to house it, Malone evinces the sort of mature mentality that modernity could use. Moreover, delimiting what his foundation can do well enabled Malone to ask: “what else can I do excellently?” It is ironic that pruning lays the groundwork for a Renaissance person being able to extend his or her excellence (a virtue) on to other, even disparate, fields. In Malone’s case, in being freed up from the care of an archive for which is organization was ill-suited for anyway, he freed himself up to apply his strengths to other vintures, such as writing on virtue ethics, for example.

Beyond intelligence, a certain mentality that includes character or a virtue ethic involving self-discipline undergirds the bringing together of intellectual endeavor and praxis in the “real world” in a way that exudes excellence. A willingness to strive while others snooze and a value on excellence can catapult a person from the confines of a profession. A deeper, or more enriched sense of what it means to be human can result as one experiences the best in more than one domain of human experience. Just as a Buddhist would say that the “other shore” does not really exist (at least as another shore), one could say that the gulf between academia and the excellent practitioner exists only in the mind. It is a societal illusion perpetuated by a certain culture that values some things and not others. Fortunately, examples that transgress this illusion exist even in modernity. It is up to the rest of us to notice, and then decide whether we have it in ourselves to go the extra mile on a second or third course.

In the end, it is the human spirit that flourishes in the context of excellence achieved in more than one way. No one is inherently trapped in the routine of a lifeless job whose boredom reduces the task to money. Nevertheless, I suspect that sometimes it takes the words of a friend or two to enlighten a person so trapped as to where his or her passion lies. Then it is up to the person to seize the excellence within (carpe diem) and put forth the effort, to be active rather than static before it is too late.

Source:
Robin Pogrebin, “A Vast Frank Lloyd WrightArchive Is Moving to New York,” The New York Times, September 4, 2012.

Cardiologists as Ethicists: On Cheney’s Heart Transplant

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney had a heart transplant on March 24, 2012, "after five heart attacks over the past 25 years and countless medical procedures to keep him going. Cheney, 71, waited nearly two years for his new heart, the gift of an unknown donor.”[1] At the time, more than 3,100 Americans were on the states’ waiting list for a heart. Of the roughly 2,300 heart transplants performed in 2011, 332 were over sixty-five. On average, heart failure was killing 57,000 Americans a year at the time, so just a fraction of those who could use a heart get one. One might question, therefore, whether the 332 recipients who were over 65, and Cheney, who was 71, should have been allowed to avail themselves of the relatively short supply of available hearts.

 Dick Cheney was noticeably thinner after his 2010 heart attack. 

“The ethicists will get into this case.” Eric Topol, a cardiologist in California, wrote this line in reference to the question of age.[2] Specifically, should someone who could be expected to have ten years left take a heart that could otherwise allow someone else to live twenty or thirty more years?  Over 70% of heart-transplant recipients live at least five years. It could be argued that Cheney had been able to live 71 years so it is not fair for someone who is 50 or 60 to not be able to do likewise for lack of a transplant because someone Cheney’s age has it. On the other hand, Cheney could argue that because people were living into their 80s and even 90s, he could expect to do so as well. In other words, he could look at someone who is 81 and say, “it is not too much to ask to try to live that long.”

To be sure, my primary applications of ethical theory are in business, government, society, and religion. I do not have the background in biology and medicine to be an expert in medical ethics. So this essay can only be cursory. It is odd to me, therefore, when someone who has not even studied ethical theory wades in as a pseudo-ethicist. An undergraduate degree from a medical school (e.g., the M.D.) does not qualify a cardiologist as an ethicist.

Yet William Zoghbi, the incoming president of the American College of Cardiology at the time of Cheney’s transplant, said on that very day concerning Cheney’s age, “It is not too old. Age is really not a factor.” To be sure, he was referring to the medical condition of the patients. However, he went on to overreach, opining “I don’t see any ethical issues here,” given how weak Cheney’s heart had been.[3] Just because a non-ethicist does not think there are any ethical matters involved does not mean that this is so.

From my standpoint as a business ethicist, I believe an ethical issue is indeed involved in hospitals, as businesses, giving hearts to older applicants, especially if they are powerful or wealthy people who can “skip” in line by having a dedicated donor. More generally, using the utilitarian ethical theory of Bentham, it could be argued that giving hearts to older applicants violates the greatest good (in terms of pleasure) for the greatest number. Older recipients tend not to live quite as many years on a new heart, and they have already lived to be a ripe old age while someone with heart disease at 50 has not. Enabling as many people as possible to reach 71 would go a long way in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Admittedly, I must qualify my conclusion due to my lack of medical knowledge. For instance, I do not know how the older recipients fare medically relative to younger ones. Ideally, a doctor of ethics who has an undergraduate degree from a medical school should be decisive here. For a cardiologist without any formal education in ethical theory to venture an ethical conclusion suggests a certain educational immaturity, if not arrogance. I doubt that William Zoghbi had even heard of Bentham’s utilitarian theory and yet the cardiologist presumes that no ethical issues are involved in Cheney’s case.

In a society in which the profession of medicine is valued a lot, people might enable medical practitioners to get away with such an over-reach with impunity. No doubt Dick Cheney really wanted to keep living. This natural urge—the life instinct—can easily succumb to a medical practitioner’s artificial desire to over-reach in terms of what is entitled by the undergraduate degree granted by medical schools.

1. Kasie Hunt, “Dick Cheney Heart Transplant: Former VicePresident Recovering After Undergoing Surgery,” The Huffington Post, March 24, 2012.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

On the Entitlement to Exceptionalism

John Blake of CNN asks, “Have you ‘walked the aisle’ to ‘pray the prayer?’ Did you ever ‘name and claim’ something and, after getting it, announce, ‘I’m highly blessed and favored?’ . . . If this is you, some Christian pastors and scholars have some bad news: You may not know what you’re talking about. They say that many contemporary Christians have become pious parrots onstantly repeating Christian phrases that they don’t understand or distort.”[1] Unfortunately, the epistemological brain-freeze extends beyond religion onto business, thanks to marketers. 

For example, some Christians refer to “the rapture” without realizing that it is out of sync with historical Christian theology before 1850. According to Marcus Borg, a theologian, “People who speak Christian aren’t just mangling religious terminology, he says. They’re also inventing counterfeit Christian terms such as “the rapture” as if they were a part of essential church teaching. The rapture, a phrase used to describe the sudden transport of true Christians to heaven while the rest of humanity is left behind to suffer, actually contradicts historic Christian teaching, Borg says. ‘The rapture is a recent invention. Nobody had thought of what is now known as the rapture until about 1850.’”[2] Representing something as “a part of essential church teaching” without knowing what one is talking about evinces the “I can’t be wrong” attitude that typically goes along with ignorance in modern society.

For someone to say, I name and claim this house as mine, is really just a desire to possess it; the expression "name and claim" is simply a subterfuge for greed (i.e., a basic desire for more).  Accordingly, the prosperity gospel facilitates, or enables, greed, rather than constraining it. According to Blake, prosperity Christians, who believe that God rewards true belief with material wealth, “don’t say ‘I want that new Mercedes.’ They say they are going to ‘believe for a new Mercedes.’ They don’t say ‘I want a promotion.’ They say I ‘name and claim’ a promotion.”[3] However, it is impious in a religious sense to claim anything, not to mention something as profane as a job promotion. Moreover, the “claim” evinces a certain presumption to having true belief and furthermore that God the Omnipotent is constrained by the positive correlation between a certain belief and material riches. That is, besides providing a subterfuge for greed, the nonsensical phraseology represents an over-reaching by mere mortals in religious terms. Religion here functions as a lever dispensing coins.

Unfortunately, the practice of using words beyond their meaning or even incorrectly—essentially making a fool of oneself without realizing it because one thinks one can’t be wrong—pervades modern society. In business parlance, for example, some practitioners try to manipulate by urging others to “win the future.” Now, what exactly would a future lost look like? Does it even make sense? I suppose it would have to mean death, for a future lost is no future at all, and this to a human being is death. In fact, the daily grind in business is continuous rather than having a definite end-point in the future, as in a game of basketball. To refer to business managers therefore as “champions” and to urge them to “win success” mangles an already-overstretched sports analogy.

To join in and banter something about that does not make sense makes one quite the fool, even if one is doing so simply to fit in. For instance, just because other business practitioners talk of “growing” their business (or, God forbid, “growing success”) does not mean that what applies in one sense to living organisms and in another to an entire economy (e.g. "economic growth") is something one's business "does." One does not grow a business. This represents an incorrect use of the verb. Furthermore, economic growth does not mean that profits grow; rather, net income increases. Engaging in verbal slippage, wherein a word is used extrinsic to its meanings, only makes one look stupid.

Typically, an ulterior motive is the culprit behind the disregard, or lack of respect, for how a society delimits the possible meanings of words in the interest of communication. The intentional lapse is akin to historical revisionism. In both cases, selfishness is combined with disrespect for society as a whole. Too bad if you don't understand how I'm using a word; even if it's not in your dictionary, you need to adjust because I'm going to use the word as I please. To go on and broadcast one’s ignorance in a commercial goes beyond stupidity to present one's greed and desire for self-promotion without any hint of shame. Unfortunately, such promotion of even a nonsensical use of a word or phrase, such as "winning success," can result in a multiplier effect wherein pretty soon everyone is applying it to anything even in spite of the vacuous meaning. In other words, the word itself loses its definitive meaning because it is being applied as a empty form indiscriminately. However, just because people agree to treat "winning success" as substantive does not mean that the phrase has any meaning. We can all agree and behave as though the emperor is wearing clothes when he is quite naked. Similarly, treating nonsense as though it had meaning does not in itself proffer any substance.

Even in everyday sayings, insipid or banal expressions can catch on like wild fire. For example, it is common to ask someone, How is your day going?—as if the day was yours (i.e., as if the day belonged to the person). It simply does not make sense. How is the day going for you? would be better. Unfortunately, a herd, once on the march, does not verve from its well-worn path. As still another example, waiters and waitresses typically ask their customers during the meal, Are you still working on that? When I hear that while I am eating, I am tempted to reply, No, but I am still eating it. Does one work on food like one works on a project?  I think this particular practice is merely carelessness combined with a habit of repetition and small talk. The extent (and limitation) of jargon can itself be off-putting (as evincing a certain fakeness).

Using words or phrases that one does not understand is contemptible enough; the herd-animal mentality that accompanies speaking as though chewing cud is downright unseemly. In other words, the sheer repetition of the phrases—as if the speaker is simply lazy or unwilling even to "mix it up a bit"—is disturbing. Add to this the word-game element, such as in saying “let’s win the future” in order to manipulate others to work harder (i.e., the ulterior motive), and a hidden agenda is evident. Deliberately misusing words in order to manipulate is odious. Of course, the managerial race might reply that it is marketing: snazzy little slogans that don’t make sense. However, it could be asked whether looking stupid detracts from a marketing campaign.

By way of explanation, I suspect that the claim involved is the key. That is, the distorted or nonsensical phrases are manifestations of excess democracy whereby everyone feels entitled to use words differently and thus in a new sense. In feeling entitled to create a new definition for a favored word, we presume that the current usage does not pertain to us, and, furthermore, that others are obliged to recognize our own construction. Consider, for example, how socialism came to “grow” a new meaning in 2010 at odds with its actual meaning. The new, politically convenient meaning essentially was stolen from “government regulation,” but this didn’t matter to those who felt entitled to make the switch. Such entitlement extends even to using expressions that do not even make any sense.

It is the entitlement wherein use itself justifies, independent of whether there is any meaning. It might be a bit like playing God in the sense of being creators. Ficino, a priest who lived in the fifteenth century, argued that by virtue of having a soul, we human beings are creators, or gods, on earth because we are able to mold its resources for our use. There is a certain arrogance involved in viewing ourselves as gods on earth, even as being able to create new meanings for words at odds with their extant meanings and even with making sense! In spite of creating nonsense (creation ex nihilo in reverse?), the self-anointed creators tend to get annoyed when their "right" to create even nonsense is not recognized. Indeed, they presume that the extant meaning is obliged to defend itself—as if somehow the new meaning (or lack thereof portrayed in terms of meaning) were de facto the default simply in being created ex nihilo.

Here is a project: try correcting a nonsensical or incorrect expression and watch the resentment ensue. You are presumed at fault for pointing it out by the very person who has overstepped. Even a vacuous meaning simply continues unabated, oblivious to having been flagged and uncovered. In the United States, for example, people having earned one degree in law or medicine somehow think they have doctorates in those academic disciplines simply because they have made a lateral move after receiving a first degree in another school/discipline (the lateral move having a political rather than an academic underpinning). For the record, a doctorate must be a terminal degree (i.e., the highest degree possible for a given academic discipline—e.g., the J.S.D. in law and the D.Sci. M in medicine, for which respectively the LLB/JD and MD are prerequisite, hence they are not terminal!), contain a comprehensive exam (prior to graduation, hence by professors rather than an industry board) and a dissertation of substantial original research (i.e., not a senior thesis in medicine). Even in spite of an over-reaching, unquestioned entitlement on the basis of an undergraduate program in law or medical school (i.e., two years of survey courses followed by senior seminars—not even including a major, unlike the B.S. and B.A.), the self-vaunting professional is apt to presume that he or she cannot be wrong. Survey courses—there's a clue, Sherlock. In fact, the "professional" is even apt to resent being corrected (being so used to being looked up to) instead of being ashamed for having erroneously claimed to have earned something. This mentality, I’m afraid, may be part of modernity in general and perhaps American culture in particular.

Error itself may even be presumed to have a certain right to (an over-reaching) hegemony over truth in an epoch wherein higher education is typically reduced to vocation. Critical thinking is incorrectly thought to be superior to analytical and synthetic thinking because what matters is decision-making and problem-solving. How eclipses why. We cannot be wrong about this, or anything else, for we are all above average—all entitled to recreate society’s artifacts (and even religion) in our own personal images. Ultimately, reality itself becomes a screen filled with the projections of ourselves. At work, we are all professionals. We presume that we are in the club. Some customers are “members.” Some businesses are low-class enough to charge guests. Meanwhile, as per our own presumed entitlement to presumption, no one is watching the distended, or bloated, store. To borrow from Nietzsche, no one is watching the herd but the herd itself, which is in actuality wandering as though in blindness before the dawn. Certain herd animals, wanting so to dominate the herd, have relegated the cowboys by nonsensical utterances, which to the men on horses sound like garbled cud being spewed by imbeciles not worth rounding up—not tasty enough, being so full of themselves.

1. John Blake, “Do You Speak Christian?” CNN, July 31, 2011. 
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.