Speech 3 - David Foster Wallace, Kenyon College, 2005

David Foster Wallace Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, USA MAY 21, 2005 If anybody feels like perspiring, I’d invite you to go ahead, because I’m sure going to [pulls up his gown and takes out a handkerchief from his pocket]. Greetings, thanks, and congratulations to Kenyon’s graduating class of 2005.  There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?” This is a standard requirement of US commencement speeches, the deployment of didactic little parable-ish stories. The story thing turns out to be one of the better, less bullshitty conventions of the genre, but if you’re worried that I plan to present myself here as the wise, older fish explaining what water is to you younger fish, please don’t be. I am not the wise old fish. The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about. Stated as an English sentence, of course, this is just a banal platitude, but the fact is that in the day to day trenches of adult existence, banal platitudes can have a life or death importance, or so I wish to suggest to you on this dry and lovely morning. Of course the main requirement of speeches like this is that I’m supposed to talk about your liberal arts education’s meaning, to try to explain why the degree you are about to receive has actual human value instead of just a material payoff. So let’s talk about the single most pervasive cliché in the commencement speech genre, which is that a liberal arts education is not so much about filling you up with knowledge as it is about quote teaching you how to think. If you’re like me as a student, you’ve never liked hearing this, and you tend to feel a bit insulted by the claim that you needed anybody to teach you how to think, since the fact that you even got admitted to a college this good seems like proof that you already know how to think. But I’m going to posit to you that the liberal arts cliché turns out not to be insulting at all, because the really significant education in thinking that we’re supposed to get in a place like this isn’t really about the capacity to think, but rather about the choice of what to think about. If your total freedom of choice regarding what to think about seems too obvious to waste time discussing, I’d ask you to think about fish and water, and to bracket for just a few minutes your skepticism about the value of the totally obvious. Here’s another didactic little story. There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: “Look, it’s not like I don’t have actual reasons for not believing in God. It’s not like I haven’t ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn’t see a thing, and it was fifty below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out ‘Oh, God, if there is a God, I’m lost in this blizzard, and I’m gonna die if you don’t help me.’” And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. “Well then you must believe now,” he says, “After all, here you are, alive.” The atheist just rolls his eyes. “No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp.” It’s easy to run this story through kind of a standard liberal arts analysis: the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people’s two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy’s interpretation is true and the other guy’s is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person’s most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there’s the matter of arrogance. The nonreligious guy is so totally certain in his dismissal of the possibility that the passing Eskimos had anything to do with his prayer for help. True, there are plenty of religious people who seem arrogant and certain of their own interpretations, too. They’re probably even more repulsive than atheists, at least to most of us. But religious dogmatists’ problem is exactly the same as the story’s unbeliever: blind certainty, a close-mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn’t even know he’s locked up. The point here is that I think this is one part of what teaching me how to think is really supposed to mean. To be just a little less arrogant. To have just a little critical awareness about myself and my certainties. Because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded. I have learned this the hard way, as I predict you graduates will, too. Here is just one example of the total wrongness of something I tend to be automatically sure of: everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute center of the universe; the realest, most vivid and important person in existence. We rarely talk about this natural, basic self-centeredness because it’s so socially repulsive. But it’s pretty much the same for all of us. It is our default setting, hard-wired into our boards at birth. Think about it: there is no experience you have had that you are not at the absolute center of. The world as you experience it is there in front of YOU or behind YOU, to the left or right of YOU, on YOUR TV or YOUR monitor. And so on. Other people’s thoughts and feelings have to be communicated to you somehow, but your own are so immediate, urgent, real. Please don’t worry that I’m getting ready to lecture you about compassion or other-directedness or all the so-called virtues. This is not a matter of virtue. It’s a matter of my choosing to do the work of somehow altering or getting free of my natural, hard-wired default setting which is to be deeply and literally self-centered and to see and interpret everything through this lens of self. People who can adjust their natural default setting this way are often described as being “well-adjusted”, which I suggest to you is not an accidental term. Given the triumphant academic setting here, an obvious question is how much of this work of adjusting our default setting involves actual knowledge or intellect. This question gets very tricky. Probably the most dangerous thing about an academic education – least in my own case – is that it enables my tendency to over-intellectualize stuff, to get lost in abstract argument inside my head, instead of simply paying attention to what is going on right in front of me, paying attention to what is going on inside me. As I’m sure you guys know by now, it is extremely difficult to stay alert and attentive, instead of getting hypnotized by the constant monologue inside your own head (may be happening right now). Twenty years after my own graduation, I have come gradually to understand that the liberal arts cliché about teaching you how to think is actually shorthand for a much deeper, more serious idea: learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed. Think of the old cliché about “the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master”. This, like many clichés, so lame and unexciting on the surface, actually expresses a great and terrible truth. It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger. And I submit that this is what the real, no bullshit value of your liberal arts education is supposed to be about: how to keep from going through your comfortable, prosperous, respectable adult life dead, unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out. That may sound like hyperbole, or abstract nonsense. Let’s get concrete. The plain fact is that you graduating seniors do not yet have any clue what “day in, day out” really means. There happen to be whole, large parts of adult American life that nobody talks about in commencement speeches. One such part involves boredom, routine, and petty frustration. The parents and older folks here will know all too well what I’m talking about. By way of example, let’s say it’s an average adult day, and you get up in the morning, go to your challenging, white-collar, college-graduate job, and you work hard for eight or ten hours, and at the end of the day you’re tired and somewhat stressed and all you want is to go home and have a good supper and maybe unwind for an hour, and then hit the sack early because, of course, you have to get up the next day and do it all again. But then you remember there’s no food at home. You haven’t had time to shop this week because of your challenging job, and so now after work you have to get in your car and drive to the supermarket. It’s the end of a work day and the traffic is apt to be: very bad. So getting to the store takes way longer than it should, and when you finally get there, the supermarket is very crowded, because of course it’s the time of day when all the other people with jobs also try to squeeze in some grocery shopping. And the store is hideously, flourescently lit and infused with soul-killing muzak or corporate pop and it’s pretty much the last place you want to be but you can’t just get in and quickly out; you have to wander all over the huge, over-lit store’s confusing aisles to find the stuff you want and you have to maneuver your junky cart through all these other tired, hurried people with carts (et cetera, et cetera, cutting stuff out because this is a long ceremony) and eventually you get all your supper supplies, except now it turns out there aren’t enough check-out lanes open even though it’s the end-of-the-day rush. So the checkout line is incredibly long, which is stupid and infuriating. But you can’t take your frustration out on the frantic lady working the register, who is overworked at a job whose daily tedium and meaninglessness surpasses the imagination of any of us here at a prestigious college. But anyway, you finally get to the checkout line’s front, and you pay for your food, and you get told to “Have a nice day” in a voice that is the absolute voice of death. Then you have to take your creepy, flimsy, plastic bags of groceries in your cart with the one crazy wheel that pulls maddeningly to the left, all the way out through the crowded, bumpy, littery parking lot, and then you have to drive all the way home through slow, heavy, SUV-intensive, rush-hour traffic, et cetera et cetera. Everyone here has done this, of course. But it hasn’t yet been part of you graduates’ actual life routine, day after week after month after year. But it will be. And many more dreary, annoying, seemingly meaningless routines besides. But that is not the point. The point is that petty, frustrating crap like this is exactly where the work of choosing is gonna come in. Because the traffic jams and crowded aisles and long checkout lines give me time to think, and if I don’t make a conscious decision about how to think and what to pay attention to, I’m gonna be pissed and miserable every time I have to shop. Because my natural default setting is the certainty that situations like this are really all about me. About MY hungriness and MY fatigue and MY desire to just get home, and it’s going to seem for all the world like everybody else is just in my way. And who are all these people in my way? And look at how repulsive most of them are, and how stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman they seem in the checkout line, or at how annoying and rude it is that people are talking loudly on cell phones in the middle of the line. And look at how deeply, personally unfair this is. Or, of course, if I’m in a more socially conscious liberal arts form of my default setting, I can spend time in the end-of-the-day traffic being disgusted about all the huge, stupid, lane-blocking SUV’s and Hummers and V-12 pickup trucks, burning their wasteful, selfish, forty-gallon tanks of gas, and I can dwell on the fact that the patriotic or religious bumper-stickers always seem to be on the biggest, most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest [responding here to loud applause] (this is an example of how NOT to think, though) most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest, most inconsiderate and aggressive drivers. And I can think about how our children’s children will despise us for wasting all the future’s fuel, and probably screwing up the climate, and how spoiled and stupid and selfish and disgusting we all are, and how modern consumer society just sucks, and so forth and so on. You get the idea. If I choose to think this way in a store and on the freeway, fine. Lots of us do. Except thinking this way tends to be so easy and automatic that it doesn’t have to be a choice. It is my natural default setting. It’s the automatic way that I experience the boring, frustrating, crowded parts of adult life when I’m operating on the automatic, unconscious belief that I am the center of the world, and that my immediate needs and feelings are what should determine the world’s priorities. The thing is that, of course, there are totally different ways to think about these kinds of situations. In this traffic, all these vehicles stuck and idling in my way, it’s not impossible that some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive. Or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he’s trying to get this kid to the hospital, and he’s in a way bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am: it is actually I who am in HIS way. Or I can choose to force myself to consider the likelihood that everyone else in the supermarket’s checkout line is just as bored and frustrated as I am, and that some of these people probably have much harder, more tedious or painful lives than I do. Again, please don’t think that I’m giving you moral advice, or that I’m saying you are supposed to think this way, or that anyone expects you to just automatically do it. Because it’s hard. It takes will and effort, and if you are like me, some days you won’t be able to do it, or you just flat out won’t want to. But most days, if you’re aware enough to give yourself a choice, you can choose to look differently at this fat, dead-eyed, over-made-up lady who just screamed at her kid in the checkout line. Maybe she’s not usually like this. Maybe she’s been up three straight nights holding the hand of a husband who is dying of bone cancer. Or maybe this very lady is the low-wage clerk at the motor vehicle department, who just yesterday helped your spouse resolve a horrific, infuriating, red-tape problem through some small act of bureaucratic kindness. Of course, none of this is likely, but it’s also not impossible. It just depends what you what to consider. If you’re automatically sure that you know what reality is, and who or what is really important; if you want to operate on your default setting, then you, like me, probably won’t consider possibilities that aren’t annoying and miserable. But if you really learn how to pay attention, then you will know there are other options. It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, hot, slow, consumer-hell type situation as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down. Not that that mystical stuff is necessarily true. The only thing that’s capital-T True is that you get to decide how you’re gonna try to see it. This, I submit, is the freedom of a real education, of learning how to be well-adjusted. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn’t. You get to decide what to worship. Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship – be it JC or Allah, be it Yaweh or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles – is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness. Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings. They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing. And the so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along on the fuel of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the center of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talked about much in the great outside world of wanting and achieving. The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day. That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing. I know that this stuff probably doesn’t sound fun and breezy or grandly inspirational the way a commencement speech is supposed to sound. What it is, as far as I can see, is the capital-T Truth, with a whole lot of rhetorical niceties stripped away. You are, of course, free to think of it whatever you wish. But please don’t just dismiss it as just some finger-wagging Dr. Laura sermon. None of this stuff is really about morality or religion or dogma or big fancy questions of life after death. The capital-T Truth is about life BEFORE death. It is about the real value of a real education, which has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over: “This is water.” “This is water.” It is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out. Which means yet another grand cliché turns out to be true: your education really IS the job of a lifetime. And it commences: now. I wish you way more than luck.

Speech 2 - Martin Luther King’s I have a dream speech August 28 1963

Martin Luther King’s I have a dream speech August 28 1963

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's Capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check; a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.
Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?"
We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.
We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.
We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.
We can never be satisfied as long as our chlidren are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "for whites only."
We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.
No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, that one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exhalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I will go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.
With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning, "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrims' pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that; let freedom ring from the Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Top Ten Commencement Speeches of All Time

1/     David Foster Wallace    “Real Freedom?”    Kenyon  2005 2/     J. K. Rowling    “Failure and Imagination”  Harvard  2008 3/     Paul Hawken    ”The Earth is Hiring”    Portland  2009 4/     Barbara Kingsolver    “Your Money or Your LIfe”    Duke  2008 5/     Steve Jobs    “Find What You Love”    Stanford  2005 6/     Bono    “That’s Not a Cause. That’s an Emergency.”    Penn  2004 7/     Vaclav Havel    “Radical Renewal of Human Responsibility”    Harvard  1995 8/     Toni Morrison    “Be Your Own Story”    Wellesley  2004 9/     Neil Gaiman    “Make Good Art”    University of the Arts  2012 10/   George Saunders    “Becoming Kinder”    Syracuse  2013 http://www.humanity.org/voices/commencements

Speech 1 - Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address

Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address I’m honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. Truth be told, I never graduated from college and this is the closest I’ve ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That’s it. No big deal. Just three stories. The first story is about connecting the dots. I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out? It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: “We got an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?” They said: “Of course.” My biological mother found out later that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would go to college. This was the start in my life. And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents’ savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn’t see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I’ve ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn’t interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked far more interesting. It wasn’t all romantic. I didn’t have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends’ rooms, I returned Coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example: Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn’t have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and sans serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can’t capture, and I found it fascinating. None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But 10 years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it’s likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backward 10 years later. Again, you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. Because believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart, even it won’t lead you off the well-worn path. And that will make all the difference. My second story is about love and loss. I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents’ garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4,000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating. I really didn’t know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down — that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over. I didn’t see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life. During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the world’s first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple’s current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together. I’m pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn’t been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don’t lose faith. I’m convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking and don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking. Don’t settle. My third story is about death. When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.” It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something. Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure — these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart. About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn’t even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor’s code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you’d have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes. I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and thankfully I’m fine now. This was the closest I’ve been to facing death, and I hope it’s the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept: 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. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true. Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary. When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960s, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors and Polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: It was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions. Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: “Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.” It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. Thank you all very much.

기술경영 이론

Invention(과학적 발명) vs Innovation(발명의 상용화): Schumpeter 1934 - 연구 vs 개발, 기초연구 vs 개발혁신 - 혁신이란 기술 변화가 제품 상용화로 이어지는 전체 프로세스를 말함 (Nelson & Winter 1982)   ★ Idea → Engineering → Business - 기술 주도 시장(technology input-markets)은 시장 실패로 끝남 (Schumpeter 1942, Nelson 1959, Arrow 1962).   발명의 높은 고정비, 큰 불확실성, 재생산의 낮은 한계비용, 높은 외부성(externalities) 때문임. - 초기 R&D 활동은 생산 활동을 유지하고 향상시키기 위해서 필요성이 늘어남 (Chandler 1990) - 내부 R&D를 통해 창출된 기술 기반으로부터 기업들은 축적된 지식을 신제품 개발에 활용하기 위해   범위의 경제를 늘리고, 대규모 R&D 기능이 늘어나고, 규모의 경제를 통해 진입장벽을 세움    (Teece 1986, Chandler 1990) Resource Allocation Process: Bower 1970, Burgelman 1983, Christensen & Bower 1996, Noda & Bower 1996, Gilbert 2002 - 전략적 주도권은 최전방 관리자의 행동에서 시작해서 자원과 최고경영층의 관심을 얻기 위해 경쟁함 - 반복적인 자원할당 프로세스는 전략적 헌신을 높이거나 낮춤 - Disruptive innovation 개발을 위해서는 기존과 분리된 별도의 자원 할당 프로세스를 갖추어야 함   (Tushman & O'Reilly 1997) Value-chain Analysis: Porter 1985 - 기업 단위에서 가치 창출(creation)과 가치 전용(appropriation)을 분석 - 경쟁 우위와 경쟁은 더 이상 기업 단위가 아니라 constellation 수준에서 결정되어야 함   (Gomes-Casseres 1994) Resource-Based View (RBV): Barney 1986, 1991; Dierickx & Cool 1989; Grant 1991; Peteraf 1993 - 고유한 자원과 역량은 가치 창출과 지속 가능한 경쟁 우위를 만들어냄 - 경쟁우위(competitive advantage)는 불완전하게 모방/지속/교환 가능하고,   가치 있는 자산(asset)으로부터 나옴 - 기존 지배적 관점인 Portfolio-based view (1960~1970년대)와   마이클 포터 진영(1980년대)이 주장하는 비관련 다각화(unrelated diversification - 가치사슬) 전략과 불일치 - 관련 다각화 전략과 연관된 Competence-based 전략을 지지 (Markides & Williamson 1994) - 분열을 조장하고 단기 성과에만 집착하는 대기업의 사업부제 조직에 반대 - Core competencies와 Radical innovation 개발을 강조   (Prahalad & Hamel 1990; Chandler 1991; Hedlund 1994; Teece et al. 1994; Christensen & Foss 1997) * 마이클 포터(1991)는 RBV는 우리 회사가 가장 잘 하는 걸 하자는 것으로    NIH 신드롬을 조장하고 내부에 치중하는 경향이 있다고 비판 Core Competencies: Prahalad & Hamel 1990 - 기술집약적 대기업들 지속 성장을 위해 차별화된 기술 역량에 집중 - 전문성 및 시너지 경제 확보를 통해 여러 제품 시장에서 혁신 가능 - 기업 전체의 핵심 역량 개발과 사업부제의 문제점을 극복하기 위해 Central Planning이 필요 - 1978~1980년대 일본 기업들은 핵심 역량 개발의 수단으로 외부 지식 확보 - 핵심 역량은 architectural과 radical innovation을 개발하기 위해 필요한 전사 통합 역량과 관련되거나   핵심 부품을 개발하기 위해 필요한 깊고 좁은 전문 기술 역량과 관련되기도 함 Architectural Innovation: Henderson & Clark 1990 - 핵심 기술 개념의 연결을 변화시킴 - 기존 혁신 구분(incremental vs radical)에 component(module)와 architecture(systemic) 레벨을 추가 - Incremental innovation (Henderson & Clark 1990, Christensen & Bower 1996) - Radical innovation: 핵심 기술 개념을 바꾸고, 이것들의 연결로 인해 기존 플레이어들이 적응하기 어렵게 함   (Tushman & Anderson 1986) - Disruptive innovation: 초기에 새로운 고객군에 접근하여 다른 성능 특성에 집중하는 것   (Christensen & Bower 1996) - Systemic innovation: 사업 시스템의 다른 부분들을 크게 조정하여 공급자/구매자 등 이해관계자와 협력   (Teece 1986, Chesbrough & Teece 1996, Teece 1996, De Laat 1999) - 대기업들은 급격한 기술 변화로 인한 radical innovation 뿐만 아니라 잠재적인 시스템 변화를 포함하는   architectural innovation에 어려움을 겪음 - 기존 제품 architecture는 조직의 일상화, 분업화로 인한 타성에 의해 architectural innovation에 저항 - 대기업은 이러한 혁신에 적응하기 위해 중앙집중식 기획(centralized planning) 요소가 필요 - Capability: 특별한 생산적 활동을 위한 자원을 동원하는 팀 차원의 역량 - Competence: 다양한 자원을 동원하고 조화시키고 개발하는 고위 경영 역량,   시스템 레벨에서 경쟁 우위와 가치를 창출하는 역량 Complementary Assets: Teece 1986 - 기술혁신과 혁신을 상용화하기 필요한 complementary asset을 구분 - 기술혁신 분야에서 선구자들은 혁신을 과대평가하고, complementary asset의 중요성을 과소평가함 - Complementary asset은 제휴나 라이센싱에 의해 아웃소싱되거나 또는 내부 개발을 통해서 확보 - Teece는 Resource-based와 Transaction cost 이론을 결합하여 Contingency framework를 개발 Appropriability Mechanism: Levin et al. 1988, Teece 1986, Cohen et al. 2000, Anton & Yao 2004 - 전유성(appropriability)은 혁신을 통해서 얻게 된 지식, 기술 등으로 지속적으로 이익을 창출할 수 있는 성질 - 기업은 다양한 appropriability mechanism을 갖는데,   특허, 영업비밀, lead-time, complementary asset(제조/판매/서비스 역량) 등이 있음   ★ 지식의 공유 : Free Open Software vs. Microsoft Absorptive Capacity: Cohen & Levinthal 1990 - 내부 R&D 투자는 새롭게 향상된 기술과 혁신을 제공하고,   외부 환경에서 발생하는 관련 지식을 흡수하는 역량을 공급 - 흡수 역량은 주로 R&D 투자의 부산물로 보여짐 - 기초 연구는 혁신에 직접적인 가치를 제공하지 않지만,   관련된 외부 과학 지식을 통합하는 역량에 긍정적 영향을 미치기 때문에 기업은 기초 연구에 투자   (Rosenberg 1990) - 자체 R&D를 통한 흡수 역량 개발은 외부 R&D로부터 온 기술확산(spillovers)을 위한 방법으로 중요함 - 대기업은 소기업 보다 자체 R&D로부터 나온 기술확산의 내부 사용에 더 유리함 - 제휴를 통해서도 흡수 역량을 높일 수 있음 (Lane & Lubatkin 1998) - 혁신을 배우고 찾는 것은 상호간, 학문간, 조직간 속성임   (Rothwell et al. 1974, Rosenberg 1982, von Hippel 1988, Lundvall 1992, Pavitt 1998)   ★ 혁신은 천재적인 개인이 혼자 만드는 것이 아니라 여러 사람의 아이디어가 맞부딪칠때 탄생함 Value Constellations: Brandenburger & Stuart 1996 - 참여 기업들에 의한 가치 전용은 그들의 구매력(bargaining power)에 의해 좌우됨 - 가치사슬 분석(Value-chain analysis), 거래 비용 경제(Transaction costs economics), 네트워크 이론, RBV는   Value Constellation을 설명하는데 유용한 핵심 개념임 - 네트워크 포지션은 구매력에 결정적인 영향을 미침: network centrality, structural holes,   다중 네트워크에 참여 (Nohria & Garcia Pont 1991, Burt 1992, Lorenzoni & Baden-Fuller 1995) - 참여자들의 협력과 가치 공유의 수준이 전체적으로 constellation이 창출하는 가치를 결정하기 때문에   value appropriation은 constellation 단계에서 가치 창출 전략과 함께 고려되어야 함 - 대부분의 자원은 value constellation에 있는 참여자들에 의해 소유되기 때문에   중심 기업이 자원 통제력을 갖는다 해도 단지 일부만 소유함 - Transaction costs economics는 거래에서 가장 효과적인 지배(governance) 형태를 선택하는 것에 관심.   거래 비용을 최소화하는 것보다 거래 가치를 극대화하는 것이 중요함   (Ring and van de Ven 1992, Zajac & Olson 1993, Dyer 1997, Madhok 1997) - The relational view of the firm은 개별 기업의 경제적 성과는 관계 네트워크와 연결된다는 이론   (Dyer & Singh 1998).   기업간 네트워크 형태와 가치 창출 사이에는 연결고리가 있고, 가치는 기업 보다 네트워크에서 창출됨   (Amit & Zott 2001) Dynamic Capability: Teece et al. 1997, Eisenhardt & Martin 2000 - 급변하는 환경에 대응하기 위해 내부와 외부 역량(competency)을 통합하는 능력, 구축, 변경하는 것으로   과거 핵심 역량(core competency) 개념과 대비됨 Open Innovation: Chesbrough 2003 - Open innovation은 R&D를 open system으로 접근함 - 기업은 자신의 기술을 진보시키기 위해 내부/외부 아이디어와 시장을 향한 내부/외부 경로를 모두 사용해야 함 - 내부/외부 아이디어는 아키텍처와 시스템으로 결합되고 이를 위해 사업모델을 활용함   ★ 중앙집권적 통제(Central Planning & Strategy)와 align 필요, 타기업과 공동 개발(협력) 성과 내기 어려움,        내부 R&D 기능이 작은 기업이 Open Innovation 활용하는 것이 더 효과적

인문학 강의 2016

2016 디자인 세미나 무인양품 Masaaki Kanai 회장 (2016.9.22.)   "시민발 생활 미학 운동 - 사상의 계승과 탐구"   - 무지(Muji)의 대전략 "도움이 되다"   - 지금까지 풍요로운 생활만을 추구하던 디자인이 수난   - 자기 가축화의 진행    - 오늘날 고도 성장은 했지만, 고도 성숙하지 못함      60년 전 가치는 겸손/솔직/인내/공존/희망,     오늘날(GDP 60배 증가) 가치는 오만/억지/남을 탓함/자기중심/불안   - "無의 用" by 노자   - 일, 수입, 소비로 이어지는 생활방식. "도움이 되다" 감각을 가지기 힘들다. 주식과 게임이 사회에 어떤 도움이 되나?   - 기분 좋은 생활 "이것으로 충분하다" : Muji의 일     정성/간소/섬세/간결/조화   - 우리에게 가장 중요한 문제 : 물/식량/에너지 부족, 지구온난화, 저출산/고령화, 분쟁      그러나, 문제 삼지 않음 (타조 증후군)   - 사회의 과제는 한사람 한사람의 과제이며, 비즈니스의 과제임.   - 문명은 공통화, 문화는 차이, 글로벌화는 양극화   - 절대가치(육상/수영)인가 상대가치(축구/야구)인가?   - 무인양품 활동 "현지화/토착화" : 자연과의 공생, 공동체를 재생, Creative 존중   ★ 분명 누군가에게 도움이 될 것입니다. 누군가가 공감해줄 것입니다. 누군가가 기뻐해줄 것입니다. 인문학 클래스 1. 박웅현 CCO (2016.10.7.)    "나에게 인문학이란? 문답을 통한 인문학 의미 고찰"   - 직장 생활은 수단, 아내에게 복종      가장 중요한 Client는 가족. 사생활은 공무에 우선. 개인이 잠시 빠져도 돌아가게 하는 것이 조직 시스템의 힘.   - 인생 멋있게 사는 방법 "관계의 역전. 팀원(아랫사람)을 무섭게 봐라."     같이 일하고 싶게 해야 함. 존중해야 함. 일이 빨라진다고 느끼게 판단을 빨리 해야 함.   - "우리들의 무의식을 믿자" Spark of the Genius   - 돈을 추구한다고 따라오지 않음. 돈을 오게 해야 함. 장점을 가지고 조직에 기여.   - Art는 표현, Design은 배려      (아랫)사람이 가장 중요   - 데미안 첫 문장 "나에게서 솟아나오는 것. 나는 그것을 살고 싶었다."   - 어른스러움. Happily ever after는 없음. 사랑은 식는다. 나이가 들면 어쩔 수 없는 사랑을 함.     바꿀 수 없는 건 싫어하지 않는다.     Love your fate. (적극적 운명론) 죽음을 기억하라.   - "기어이 내 선택을 옳게 만든다."      Life is simple. Make a choice, and don't look back.   - 인문학은 객관적인 조건을 바라보는 시선을 바꿔줌.   - 생각의 지평 확장 : 여행, 책, 대화   - 원래 인생이 그런 것임. 위기와 두려움은 당연함.      "그냥 견뎌라."   - 자기 일에 대한 가치     열패감을 돌파. 뚫고 나감. 2. 강원국 교수 (2016.10.14.)    "생각이 글이 되려면 - 사람의 마음을 움직이는 글쓰기"   - 발표를 잘 하려면 관객 입장이 되오 보기 (미리 가서 자리에서 무대를 바라보기), 자신이 전하고자 하는 메세지에 집중하기   - 말하듯이 써라 by 볼테르   - 글이 안 써진다는 것은 욕심을 부리고 있는 것임   - 사람의 생각을 아는 방법은 글, 말 밖에 없음. 글과 말이 인격과 수준임.   - 글을 잘 쓰는 사람의 특징     (1) 글쓰기를 좋아함     (2) 글쓰기 목적이 분명함     (3) 글쓰기의 가치를 알고 있음     (4) 글을 잘 쓴다고 생각함   - 처음에는 안 써지다가도 써지는 순간이 반드시 온다.     암중모색. 생각과 글쓰기는 처음이 어렵지 나중에 폭발함. 뇌의 여러 Hot Spot을 부딪쳐 보는 과정을 거쳐 나옴.     환기를 시켜줘야 하고, 폭발 후 절제가 필요함.   - 일단 써 놓아야 글이 시작됨. (작동시작이론)   - 뇌는 과제를 주면 완결하려고 함 ex. 첫사랑 or 실패는 계속 기억 (러시아 심리학자 자이가르니)     뇌는 간절하고 절실하면 계속 일함. 패턴 완성 기능. 멀티태스킹 안됨.   - 실력이 늘 때 : 갑자기 끼어드는 일, 내 일이 아닌 일, 자기 역량을 뛰어넘는 일을 하게 될 때   - 위기감 조성(ex. 시간 제약) 하고 반드시 해야 하는 말부터 쓰기   - 조직의 원리 : 불안감 조성, 경쟁 자극   - 직장인 필수 요소 : 자기효능론(과제 달성 능력) + 회복탄력성(딛고 일어서는 능력)   - 아랫사람(담당자)이 고민을 제일 많이 함. 위로 갈수록 정보가 더 많음. 정보는 관계임. 고민 많이 하고 정보가 많으면 잘 쓸 수 밖에 없음.   - 주인의식 가지면 성과 증가 : 권한 위임, 성장하는 느낌. 경청하고 질문하고 피드백 해주어야 함.   - 글을 잘 쓰려면     (1) 어휘력 : 단어의 뜻을 아는 것이 글쓰기의 실마리.      A4 1장 분량의 글에서 5개 단어 사전 검색.      키워드를 국어사전(사전적 정의)과 백과사전(개념적 정의)에서 찾아보기.      유의어를 찾아보고 더 맞는 말 찾아써야 함.     1물1어설 : 딱 맞는 말은 단 하나뿐임 by 플루베르     딱 맞는 단어는 번갯불과 반딧불의 차이임. 딱 맞는 단어로 글이 빛이 남 by 마크 트웨인     (2) 문장력 : 단문으로 쓸 것. 주어와 서술어 위주로 쓰고 형용사, 부사는 적게 쓸 것     문단 안에서 첫 문장은 주장하는 말로 쓸 것     글쓰기는 요약하는 능력임.      반론을 해 볼 것. 다각도, 다단계로 인과관계 찾기     강준만 칼럼으로 요약, 반론 연습해보기     (3) 글 전개의 틀 : 비교/대조, 분류/구분, 단계/수준 등      오답노트 가질 것. 30개 Checklist     계속 고칠 것. 잠깐잠깐 자주 봐야 함. 괴테는 파우스트를 60년 동안 썼음.   - 나쁜 글쓰기 습관     생각을 했다, SNS 상에서 (~적, ~화), 나에게 있어서, ~ 대하여 (→ ~ 관하여), ~되어, ~됩니다, ~ 것이다, 동어반복 등   - 제일 중요한 것은 생각임. 100개의 자기 생각 가질 것.   - 습관화하면 뇌가 거부하는 것도 적응하게 됨. 자신만의 Hub를 가질 것. 3. 전영애 교수 (2016.10.21.) / 여백서원     "문학의 공간, 시인의 집에 머물다"   - 무엇을 하느냐 보다 어떻게 하느냐가 중요함 4. 최일범 교수 (2016.10.26.)     "동양철학의 사유 방법"   - 유교 '인의예지' (仁義禮智) : 올바른 사랑, 정의, 사회구조, 옳고 그름을 구별   - 도교 '무위자연' (無爲自然) : 인간이 하는 게 없고, 자연으로 보냄.       산에 가는 이유는 인간 관계 속에서 나를 격리 하는 것.   - 불교 '색즉시공' (色卽是空) : 불교가 극복하려는 과제. 망상, 무명(無明), 어리석음, 집착.      서양이 정신치료 관점에서 불교를 주목   - 아들러 '미움받을 용기'는 10번 읽어야 함.     프로이트, 융, 아들러, 빅터 프랭클은 동양 철학 영향 받음.      인간의 행복과 불행은 인간관계에서 비롯됨. 유교의 오륜(五倫) 군신, 부자, 부부, 형제, 친구 중에서 부부가 중심. 道는 부부에서 출발한다.   - 종교가 지배하는 시대는 지났음.      현 시대는 심리적으로 불안한 시대. 도피 → 저출산, 싱글족. 미래 인간의 비전과 문명적 토대는 어디에 있나?   - 근대는 바이러스(외부 공격)가 지배, 현대는 신경계 질병(내면 공격)이 지배 by 한병철 교수 "피로 사회"   - 자기 주관 뚜렷하지 못하면 감정에 휘둘림     불교는 2000년 전에 '무의식'을 발견. 인간의 내면 속 감정과 에너지에 집착, 몰두하지 말고 소화, 배출시켜야 함. 운동, 음악, 문학(인문학)을 통해 대리만족하면서 배출     불교의 空 사상은 자기를 버리는 것   - 일류는 허상임. 성숙하고 인류애적인 철학이 있어야 함.      끊임없이 경쟁하는 회사 생활은 즐겁지 않음. 신뢰관계를 구축하고 마음이 안정되면 행복해짐.     서로 이익을 가지고만 다투면 국가가 무너짐 by 맹자   - 논어의 출발은 즐길 수 있는 공부     자기 인격이 독립되면 남을 진정으로 축하해 줌. 자기 확신과 주도적인 삶 (인격 성숙)   - 결말과 끝을 보고 행동하라 from 성공하는 사람들의 7가지 습관   - 인문학이란 나를 돌아보는 시간, 내 마음을 들여다보도록 주위를 환기시키는 것.

Strategy

Strategy is a systematic approach to solving a problem. Ten principles for effective and efficient planning 1. Make top-down target-setting a priority 2. Take an analyst's perspective: using metrics based on value drivers 3. Plan in less detail 4. Apply a different level of detail at each stage 5. Shorten the planning cycle: start planning later in the year 6. Balance ambitions against forecasting 7. Be adaptable and flexible 8. Rethink the incentive system 9. Manage tradeoffs: balance planning speed and planning deapth 10. Clarify governance and objectives Diagnosis Factors - Guiding Policy - Obstacles - Focus & Choice - Execution - (Chain-link) Performance hinges on the coherence between the components. A good strategy provides consistency, coherence, and alignment. - A good strategy provides a framework for making consistent decisions over time that build cumulatively toward a desired objective. - Strategy provides an integrating mechanism to ensure tactical decisions are coherent. - An R&D strategy needs to have a strategy that is aligned with the broader business strategy of the organization in which it operates. All strategies come down to certain "core hypotheses" about what it takes to win... Thus, at some level, all strategies are "bets". The game plan for an R&D organization can be broken down into 4 strategic levers: architecture, processes, people, and portfolio. The better approach depends on the organization's "core hypotheses" about what it takes to win. New products and services 1. Trend Analysis 2. Customer Needs and Pain Points 3. Solutions 4. Concept and Scenarios 5. Competitive Advantage 6. Relevant Market (Market Size and Positioning) 7. Business Model (Revenue and Partners) 8. Competition (Strengths and Weaknesses) 9. Aligned Business Strategy Business Model Innovation A business model consists of two essential elements - the value proposition and the operating model - each of which has three subelements. The value proposition answers the question, What are we offering to whom? It reflects explicit choices along the following three dimensions: Target Segment(s), Product or Service Offering, Revenue Model The operating model answers the question, How do we profitably deliver the offering? It captures the business's choices in the following three critical areas: Value Chain, Cost Model, Organization Scaling up can be the most critical step for Business Model Innovation.

조엘 스폴스키의 영광의 날들 - 빌과 함께 하던 때

이 이야기는 전 MS 직원이었던 조엘 스폴스키가 빌 게이츠가 완전히 은퇴하던 2008년 빌 게이츠에 대한 자신의 기억을 쓴 것이다. 3년 가량 됐으니 축약판이나 부분적인 얘기는 여기저기서 들어보신 적 있을 듯... 1991년 대학을 졸업한 뒤 나는 MS의 엑셀 팀에서 일하게 되었다. 내 직책은 프로그램 매니저였다. 내가 할 일은 새로운 프로그래밍 시스템을 만들어서 유저들이 엑셀을 자동화 할 수 있게 하는 것이었다. 나는 이 기능에 대한 세부사항을 수백 페이지 분량의 문서로 작성하였다. 그 시절 MS에서는 우리가 BillG 리뷰라고 부르는 것이 행해지고 있었는데, 이는 빌 게이츠 스스로 주요 신기능에 대해 이것저것 검토해보는 것이었다. 그 시절 빌 게이츠는 이미 유명인이었고 세계에서 가장 부자인 사람으로 불리고 있었다. 내 BillG 리뷰 전날 나는 그에게 내 문서 사본을 보내라는 지시를 받았다. 그걸 인쇄하는데 프린터 용지함 하나 분량이 다 소모됐다. 일단 문서를 인쇄해서 보낸 뒤 나는 여전히 손볼 필요가 있는 수많은 디테일 중 하나를 꼽기로 했다. 그것은 엑셀의 내부 날짜 및 시간 함수가 베이직의 것과 호환되는지 하는 것이었다. 우리가 베이직을 엑셀의 프로그래밍 언어로 쓰기로 했기 때문이다. 다음날-1992년 6월 30일- 우리는 회의실에 모였다. 그 시절 MS는 지금보다 훨씬 덜 관료적이었다. 오늘날 11 혹은 12계층이나 되는 관리구조 대신 나는 마이크 콘테에게 보고했는데, 그는 크리스 그레이엄에게 보고했고, 그는 피트 히긴스에게, 그리고 마이크 메이플을 거쳐 빌에게 올라갔다. 하부부터 최상위까지 6층 밖에 없었다. 우리는 그때 8계층의 관리구조를 가진 제너럴 모터스 같은 회사를 조롱하곤 했다. 그러니 이 일에 관여된 모든 책임자들이 그 방에 있었던 것이다. 거의 사촌지간이나 진배 없는 사이였다. 물론 우리 팀에서도 한명 왔다. 그의 역할은 빌이 얼마나 Fuck을 많이 말하는지 세는 것이었다. F 카운터가 적을수록 더 잘했다는 의미이다. 빌이 들어왔다. 나는 그가 두 다리, 두 팔, 머리 하나를 갖고 있다는 게 참 신기하다고 생각했다. 거의 보통 인류와 똑같이 생겼던 것이다. 그리고 그가 내 문서를 손에 들고 있었다. 그가 내 문서를 손에 들고 있다고! 그는 내가 모르는 중역 한명과 내가 이해할 수 없는 농담을 주고받았다. 몇명이 웃었다. 그리고 빌이 나에게 돌아섰다. 나는 문서 여백에 코멘트들이 적혀있다는 걸 눈치챘다. 그가 첫 페이지부터 읽었어! 읽은 게 다가 아니라 여백에다가 필기까지 해놨던 것이다. 우리가 겨우 24시간 전에 보냈음을 생각하면 그가 전날 밤에나 봤을 게 분명하다. 그가 질문을 시작했고 나는 대답했다. 처음엔 상당히 쉬운 질문부터 시작했지만, 그게 어떤 것이었는진 기억나지 않는다. 그가 페이지를 휙휙 넘기면서 질문을 쏟아냈기 때문이다. 그가 내 문서를 넘겨보고 있어!(진정해! 초딩이야?) 그리고 모든 여백에 노트가 적혀있잖아! 모든 페이지에! 저걸 다 읽었단 말야?! 대화가 진행되면서 빌의 질문은 점점 어려워지고 디테일해졌다. 그리고 약간 랜덤성도 있는 것 같았다. 하지만 나는 신경쓰지 않았다. 지금까지는 나는 빌을 친구 같은 존재라고 생각했다. 내 문서를 읽어준 좋은 사람 말이다. 내 머리속에선 내가 어떻게 그의 질문에 그렇게 빨리 대답할 수 있는지 생각하고 있었다. 마지막으로 결정적인 질문이 왔다. "그런데 당신들" 빌이 말했다. "이 모든 걸 어떻게 쓰는지 모두 아는 사람 있나? 가령, 그 많은 날짜와 시간 함수들 말야. 엑셀엔 많은 날짜/시간 함수가 있지. 베이직 기능에서도 같은 함수가 들어가나? 완전히 똑같이 작동하고?" 이것이 바로 내가 어제 하루를 할애하면서 조사했던 그 질문이었다. 그리고 내가 알아낸 것은 거기 모순이 있다는 것이었다. 엑셀과 베이직 모두 각 날짜는 정해진 숫자코드가 있다. 1992년 어떤 날을 살펴봐도 양쪽은 동일했다. 하지만 19세기로 날짜를 돌려보면 엑셀과 베이직은 한자리 차이가 나는 것이었다. 어? 나를 도와줄 수 있을 것 같았던 사람은 엑셀의 오랜 프로그래머였던 에드 프라이스였다. 그는 물고기가 헤엄치는 스크린세이버를 만든 사람으로도 유명했다. 나는 에드와 거의 만난 적이 없었지만 금요일 오후 언제나 그가 내 사무실 밖 복도에 있는 미니어쳐 골프를 하는 걸 봐왔다. "1900년 2월 28일로 가봐." 그가 말했다. 그 날짜의 엑셀 코드는 59였다. "이제 3월 1일로" 숫자는 61이었다. "60은 어디로 갔지?" 에드가 물었다. "2월 29일이야!" 나는 자신있게 말했다. "1900년은 윤년이었어!" "1900년은 윤년이 아냐." 에드는 그렇게 답한 뒤 내가 이 문제에 대해 좀 더 생각하게 했다. 에드의 조언에 따라 내가 알아낸 것은 로터스의 프로그래머들이 그 날짜가 수학적 문제를 발생시키기 때문에 1900년을 무시하기로 했다는 것이었다. 그들은 아무도 현재보다 90년이나 전의 날짜에서 발생하는 문제에 신경쓰지 않을 것이라고 생각했던 것이다. 그리고 엑셀을 만든 사람들 또한 그러했고 똑같은 버그를 엑셀에서도 발생시킨 것이었다. 하지만 베이직을 만든 사람들은 같은 문제에 봉착했을 때 내부 캘린더 날짜를 하루 당김으로써 해결하려고 했다. 그렇게 베이직은 제대로된 날짜 시스템을 갖게 되었지만 다른 프로그램들과 문제를 일으키지도 않았다. 베이직이 하루 먼저 날짜를 세기 때문에 1900년 3월 1일의 베이직 내부 날짜 또한 61이었던 것이다. 그리고 여기서부터는 엑셀과 완전히 일치되는 것이다. 그러니까 둘의 시간과 날짜 함수가 호환된다고 해야하는 것인가? "그렇습니다." 빌에게 대답했다. "날짜는 완전히 동일합니다. 1900년 1월과 2월만 제외하고요." 침묵이 흘렀다. F 카운터와 내 상관은 놀란듯한 눈빛을 교환했다. 어떻게 그런 걸 알고있지? 하는 눈빛이었다. "OK. 좋아, 잘 했네." 빌이 말했다. 그는 그의 노트가 적인 내 문서 사본을 들어올렸다. 잠깐만!! 그거 저 주고가요!...그리고 나가버렸다. "4번이야." F 카운터가 발표됐다. 다른 누군가가 말했다. "우와, 이건 내가 본 것 중 가장 적은 횟수야. 빌이 나이 먹으면서 부드러워진 건가?" 당시 그는 36세였다. 이후 나는 이 상황에 대한 정확한 해석을 얻을 수 있었다. "빌은 사실 너의 문서같은 걸 보고싶어 하는 게 아냐." 동료가 말했다. "그는 단지 자네가 모든 상황을 통제하고 있는지 알고싶은 거지. 그의 방법은 네가 더이상 모른다고 시인할 때까지 점점 어려운 질문을 하는거야. 그리고 네가 미진하다는 걸 알고서야 그만두지. 아무도 그의 질문을 마지막까지 답했을 때 어떤 일이 일어날지 몰랐어. 그런 일은 일어난 적이 없거든." 내가 그걸 해냈단 말인가? 빌 게이츠는 놀랍도록 기술적인 사람이었고, 그는 MS의 소프트웨어에 대해 그걸 직접 만드는 사람보다 더 자세히 알고 있었다. 그는 수많은 변수들과 COM 오브젝트, IDispatch를 이해하고 있었고 왜 Automation이 vtables와 다른지도 알았다. 그는 시간/날짜 함수에 대해 신경쓰고 있었던 것이다. 프로그램을 만드는 사람들을 믿었다면 그렇게 간섭하지 않았겠지만, 빌 본인도 프로그래머이기 때문에 그에게 한순간이라도 거짓말을 한다는 건 불가능한 일이다. 그는 진정한, 진짜 프로그래머이기 때문이다. 프로그래머가 아닌 사람들이 소프트웨어 회사를 경영하려 하는 것은 서핑할 줄 모르는 사람이 서핑 하려고 하는 것과 같다. 아무리 그가 해변가에 훌륭한 서핑 강사를 두고있다고 해도 그는 계속 보드에서 바다로 빠질 것이다. MBA 문화는 사람들이 자기가 이해하지 못 하는 조직을 경영할 수 있다고 믿게 만든다. 하지만 많은 경우 그렇지 못하다. 물론 시간이 흐르면서 MS는 거대해졌고 빌은 너무 지나치게 나아갔다. MS의 전략은 미국 정부와 충돌하기도 했다. 스티브 발머-그는 프로그래머가 아니다-가 CEO 직을 넘겨받았을 때, 이론상으로 이 덕분에 빌이 자기가 잘 하는 것(프로그래머를 관리하는 것)에 더 집중할 수 있을 것 같았다. 하지만 그것조차 11계층이나 되는 관리구조에서 오는 문제를 고칠 수는 없었다. 끝없는 회의와 뭘 만들든 간에 완고하게 이래야 한다고 주장하는 것들 말이다. 무료 웹브라우저 하나를 출시하기 위해 얼마나 많은 R&D 비용과 법무비용이 들었으며, 명성의 하락을 겪어야 했을까? 세상은 움직이는 법이고, 이달 빌은 공식적으로 그가 창립한 회사의 풀타임 직에서 퇴직했다. 그가 여전히 회장이긴 하지만 말이다. 내 옛날 부서도 바뀌었다. '엑셀 베이직'은 이제 '마이크로소프트 엑셀을 위한 마이크로소프트 비주얼 베이직 응용' 부서로 바뀌어서 수많은 TM과 R이 붙게 되었다. 사실 TM과 R을 어디 붙여야 되는지도 잘 모르겠다. 나는 1994년 회사를 그만뒀다. 이제 나는 내 회사를 꾸리면서 빌과 같은 식으로 리뷰를 하고 있다. 물론 절대 빌 만큼 잘 하지는 못 하지만 말이다. 그리고 나는 빌이 나를 완전히 잊었을 거라 생각했다. 군중 속의 한명에 불과하게 말이다. 그가 월스트리트 저널과 한 인터뷰를 보기 전까진 말이다. 그는 거의 지나가는 듯한 말투로, 어떤 훌륭한 엑셀 프로그램 매니저의 후임자를 찾는 게 얼마나 어려웠는지 말했다. 그게 나를 얘기하는 걸까? 에이 설마, 다른 사람일 거야. 조엘 스폴스키는 Fog Creek Software의 CEO이며 유명한 블로그 Joel on Software를 운영하고 있다.

So Many Corporate Innovation Labs, So Little Innovation

Saul Kaplan Founder and Chief Catalyst Business Innovation Factory 2016년 4월 19일 It’s the innovator’s day. CEOs everywhere know that keeping their companies relevant in a rapidly changing world is imperative and that innovation is the solution. Corporate leaders also know their legacies depend on their organization’s ability to reinvent itself. It’s not going well. The CEOs I talk with admit privately that they’re getting tired of hearing Uber, Airbnb and Netflix disruption stories. They want their organizations to play more offense. They want to be market-makers, not just share-takers. In response, CEOs have climbed onto the innovation-lab bandwagon. Corporate innovation labs have sprung up like weeds across industries around the world. Any self-respecting CEO now has a corporate innovation lab! I have visited many of these innovation labs and spoken with those who’ve been tapped on the shoulder to start and lead them. My overall impression is that, at best, most of these innovation labs will produce only tweaks to today’s business models. Innovation labs will launch with lofty rhetoric from CEOs about transformation and thinking out-of-the-box. But as soon as line executives and business unit leaders get control of the lab’s agenda, it is destined to produce only tweaks. This shouldn’t be a surprise, because corporate innovation labs are structured, resourced and governed to produce incremental improvements to today’s business models. Lab projects are prioritized and funded to produce new products, services and tech-enabled capabilities that will improve performance of today’s business. The projects compete for resources based on financial metrics relevant to the current business model. There is nothing wrong with that approach—leaders should always improve their current business model to stay competitive. But here’s the rub—today’s corporate innovation labs won’t help a company avoid being ‘netflixed’ or disrupted by an entirely different business model. My conclusion: Corporate innovation labs aren’t set up in ways that will help companies avoid disruption. Here’s why. 10 Reasons Corporate Innovation Labs Produce Only Tweaks 1.Innovation lab mandates aren’t clear. Incremental versus transformational innovation require very different organizational approaches and support. 2.CEOs must own the transformational agenda. Instead they cede authority to line executives who are accountable for the performance of today’s business model. 3.Innovation labs overemphasize the production of a better mousetrap, as opposed to a better business model. 4.Potential innovation projects that may cannibalize current business are taken off the table, severely limiting the innovation lab’s scope. 5.Requiring a financial forecast for an innovation project—before exploring it in the real world—only works for tweaks, never for transformation. 6.Corporate innovation labs see emerging technologies through the lens of today’s business model, as opposed to a catalyst for an entirely new model. 7.Corporate innovation labs have difficulty shifting their perspective to see opportunities through the lens of customer experience and jobs-to-be-done. 8.Corporate venture funds are not innovation labs. They may provide startup capital to entrepreneurs, but withhold the company’s most important assets: scalable capabilities and market access. 9.Innovation labs aren’t organized as a connected adjacency to the core, a sandbox where capabilities can be combined and recombined, to change how customer value is created, delivered and captured. 10.Companies lack the talent systems to develop future leaders with experience working both in the core and in the innovation lab. I think we all know that tweaks are necessary—we should all get better every day. But tweaks aren’t sufficient. If tweaking the way things worked today were enough, life would be so much easier. Sometimes we need transformation, and this is one of those times. In the 21st century, the most important life skill—and corporate capability—is reinvention,. Transformation, disruption and reinvention don’t have to be scare words. We can create the conditions to explore and test entire new business models while we are still pedaling the bicycle of today’s models. An important mandate for these new innovation labs is to do R&D for new business models, the same way we do R&D today for new products, services and technologies. R&D for new business models is the new strategic imperative. Corporate innovation strategies must create discrete approaches to deliver incremental improvements to today’s models, while also enabling the exploration of entire new models. Doing so It will require more clarity on the objectives of the innovation lab, as well as and recognition that the same structure, approach, resourcing, staffing and governance will not work for both incremental and transformational innovation. It’s a good thing CEOs are taking innovation seriously. I sense they’re realizing that just setting up an innovation lab and delegating it to line executives isn’t enough, and they’re right. I’m finding more CEOs open to talking about how business model innovation fits into their strategic agendas, and I predict we will begin to see this new imperative better reflected in their organizational approaches to innovation. Today I stand by my observation: So many corporate innovation labs, so little innovation. Tomorrow I expect we will see more corporate business model sandboxes to make R&D for new business models an ongoing strategic capability. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/so-many-corporate-innovation-labs-little-saul-kaplan

임태주 시인 어머니의 편지

아들아, 보아라.

나는 원체 배우지 못했다. 호미 잡는 것보다 글 쓰는 것이 천만 배 고되다.
그리 알고, 서툴게 썼더라도 너는 새겨서 읽으면 된다.
내 유품을 뒤적여 네가 이 편지를 수습할 때면 나는 이미 다른 세상에 가 있을 것이다.
서러워할 일도 가슴 칠 일도 아니다.
가을이 지나고 겨울이 왔을 뿐이다.
살아도 산 것이 아니고, 죽어도 죽은 것이 아닌 것도 있다.
살려서 간직하는 건 산 사람의 몫이다. 그러니 무엇을 슬퍼한단 말이냐.

나는 옛날 사람이라서 주어진 대로 살았다.
마음대로라는 게 애당초 없는 줄 알고 살았다.
너희를 낳을 때는 힘들었지만, 낳고 보니 정답고 의지가 돼서 좋았고,
들에 나가 돌밭을 고를 때는 고단했지만,
밭이랑에서 당근이며 무며 감자알이 통통하게 몰려나올 때
내가 조물주인 것처럼 좋았다.
깨꽃은 얼마나 예쁘더냐. 양파꽃은 얼마나 환하더냐.
나는 도라지 씨를 일부러 넘치게 뿌렸다. 그 자태 고운 도라지꽃들이 무리지어 넘실거릴 때
내게는 그곳이 극락이었다.
나는 뿌리고 기르고 거두었으니 이것으로 족하다.

나는 뜻이 없다.
그런 걸 내세울 지혜가 있을 리 없다.
나는 밥 지어 먹이는 것으로 내 소임을 다했다.
봄이 오면 여린 쑥을 뜯어다 된장국을 끓였고,
여름에는 강에 나가 재첩 한 소쿠리 얻어다 맑은 국을 끓였다.
가을에는 미꾸라지를 무쇠솥에 삶아 추어탕을 끓였고,
겨울에는 가을무를 썰어 칼칼한 동태탕을 끓여냈다.
이것이 내 삶의 전부다.

너는 책 줄이라도 읽었으니 나를 헤아릴 것이다.
너 어렸을 적, 네가 나에게 맺힌 듯이 물었었다.
이장집 잔치 마당에서 일 돕던 다른 여편네들은 제 새끼들 불러
전 나부랭이며 유밀과 부스러기를 주섬주섬 챙겨 먹일 때
엄마는 왜 못 본 척 나를 외면했느냐고 내게 따져 물었다.
나는 여태 대답하지 않았다.
높은 사람들이 만든 세상의 지엄한 윤리와 법도를 나는 모른다.
그저 사람 사는 데는 인정과 도리가 있어야 한다는 것만 겨우 알 뿐이다.
남의 예식이지만 나는 그에 맞는 예의를 보이려고 했다.
그것은 가난과 상관없는 나의 인정이었고 도리였다.
그런데 네가 그 일을 서러워하며 물을 때마다 나도 가만히 아팠다.
생각할수록 두고두고 잘못한 일이 되었다.
내 도리의 값어치보다 네 입에 들어가는 떡 한 점이 더 지엄하고 존귀하다는 걸
어미로서 너무 늦게 알았다.
내 가슴에 박힌 멍울이다.
이미 용서했더라도 애미를 용서하거라.

부박하기 그지없다. 네가 어미 사는 것을 보았듯이
산다는 것은 종잡을 수가 없다.
요망하기가 한여름 날씨 같아서 비 내리겠다 싶은 날은 해가 나고,
맑구나 싶은 날은 느닷없이 소낙비가 들이닥친다.
나는 새벽마다 물 한 그릇 올리고 촛불 한 자루 밝혀서 천지신명께 기댔다.
운수소관의 변덕을 어쩌진 못해도 아주 못살게 하지는 않을 거라고 믿었다.
물살이 센 강을 건널 때는 물살을 따라 같이 흐르면서 건너야 한다.
너는 네가 세운 뜻으로 너를 가두지 말고, 네가 정한 잣대로 남을 아프게 하지도 마라.
네가 아프면 남도 아프고, 남이 힘들면 너도 힘들게 된다.
해롭고 이롭고는 이것을 기준으로 삼으면 아무 탈이 없을 것이다.

세상 사는 거 별 거 없다. 속 끓이지 말고 살아라.
너는 이 애미처럼 애태우고 참으며 제 속을 파먹고 살지 마라.
힘든 날이 있을 것이다. 힘든 날은 참지 말고 울음을 꺼내 울어라.
더없이 좋은 날도 있을 것이다. 그런 날은 참지 말고 기뻐하고 자랑하고 다녀라.
세상 것은 욕심을 내면 호락호락 곁을 내주지 않지만,
욕심을 덜면 봄볕에 담벼락 허물어지듯이 허술하고 다정한 구석을 내보여 줄 것이다.
별 것 없다. 체면 차리지 말고 살아라.
왕후장상의 씨가 따로 없고 귀천이 따로 없는 세상이니 네가 너의 존엄을 세우면 그만일 것이다.

아녀자들이 알곡의 티끌을 고를 때 키를 높이 들고 바람에 까분다.
뉘를 고를 때는 채를 가까이 끌어당겨 흔든다.
티끌은 가벼우니 멀리 날려 보내려고 그러는 것이고, 뉘는 자세히 보아야 하니 그런 것이다.
사는 이치가 이와 다르지 않더구나.
부질없고 쓸모없는 것들은 담아두지 말고 바람 부는 언덕배기에 올라 날려 보내라.
소중하게 여기는 것이라면 지극히 살피고 몸을 가까이 기울이면 된다.
어려울 일이 없다.
나는 네가 남보란 듯이 잘 살기를 바라지 않는다.억척 떨며 살기를 바라지 않는다.
괴롭지 않게, 마음 가는대로 순순하고 수월하게 살기를 바란다.

혼곤하고 희미하구나.
자주 눈비가 다녀갔지만 맑게 갠 날, 사이사이 살구꽃이 피고
수수가 여물고 단풍물이 들어서 좋았다. 그런대로 괜찮았다.
그러니 내 삶을 가여워하지도 애달파하지도 마라.

부질없이 길게 말했다. 살아서 한 번도 해본 적 없는 말을 여기에 남긴다.
나는 너를 사랑으로 낳아서 사랑으로 키웠다.
내 자식으로 와주어서 고맙고 염치없었다.
너는 정성껏 살아라.