If you like it, it likely is "it"

A Philosophy of "Natural Imperatives," and A System of Nine Basic and Universal Human Values

A Universal Buy-In

THERE APPEARS TO be but one basic and universal value by which all things are measured: “good.” This sizzling Fiorentine steak is good, that fresh and hearty salad is good. This book is good, that song is good. Trump is good, Obama is good. The weather is good, life is good.

The basicity and universality of “good” has long since been observed by Aristotle, whose 2,500-year-old thesis might just have finally earned a scientific validation through over 2.4 billion Facebook users in the world, whose activities are all based on the procuring, and dispensing, of the iconic thumbs-up, a universal language of “good.” “Every action and choice,” said the Philosopher, “is thought to aim at some good; and so the good is that at which everything aims.” (Aristotle, 350 BCE) Of course, Aristotle did not use the word “good,” but rather, he expressed it in his native Greek, agathon; but the sense of it is the same, whether one prefers “great,” “cool,” or “fantastic,” or in any of the many languages of the world: “hao,” “godt,” “baik,” “bien,” etc.

Good is the basic instinct and bias by which all things are judged, valued, and “liked.” When a person is presented with options—be it to choose a political party or a spouse or a lawn mower—or whether to support or alienate or sabotage someone—she will choose, consciously or otherwise, that which she deems “good.” Even a deliberate act of no-good, such as an act of terror, must only be advanced from, and campaigned as, some “good.” In all that we do, we invest ourselves on eliciting, either from others or self, a good: “Good job.” “Good play!” “Good show.” “Good taste.” “Good call.” “Good man.”

Different Perspectives

Good is subjective, and therefore, relative. What is “good” for one may be a “not-good” for the other. For one who is inclined to calculation and facticity, Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway is “good,” and for another who is inclined to emotivity and creativity, Steve Jobs’ Apple is “good.” It essentially comes down to one’s personal preference and perspective (of what is good); given that these two corporate giants are, more or less, equally profitable (Berkshire Hathaway is number 4 at 248 billion, and Apple is number 3 at 265 billion on Fortune 500). The very fact that there are in existence so many different perspectives on procuring the same success—from Ray Dalio’s “Principles” (2017), to Harvard’s “Blue Ocean Strategy” (2005), to Richard Branson’s “Screw It, Let’s Do It” (2007)—only goes to show that there are many roads to “Rome,” and each one equally legitimate. The question, then, to acquiring success is not so much, “Which is the way?” but rather, “Which is your way?”

A Philosophy of “Natural Imperatives”

The 18th century philosopher, Christian Wolff, observed that every human act (and every human judgment and decision) presupposes a “maxim,” which can be formulated, but not necessarily articulated, as:

“x is good.”

For one who enjoys a good book at home, “Perceptivity is good,” and, for another who goes out to party, “Vivacity is good.” Wolff asserts that these maxims are necessary, otherwise it would not be possible for us “to determine ourselves to do certain actions” out of numberless other possible actions. (Wolff, 1720)

Maxims are “natural imperatives”; natural because they are our personal inclinations, and imperatives because we cannot not act on them. Whereas Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperative” (Kant, 1785) consists of an absolute and commanding ought, as in, “I ought to obey the laws”; a natural imperative carries both an ought and a want, as in, “I must be happy,” “I must be healthy,” or “I must understand how the algorithms work.”

Natural Imperatives are why we act, when we act; they are our core values. They are why, for instance, Mother Teresa created her charitable Missionaries of Charity, and Bruce Lee, his invincible Jeet Kune Do; they are why Bill Gates’ Microsoft created the practical Windows, and Steve Jobs’ Apple, the revolutionary iPhone. It is probably safe to assume that Jobs would not have created the “boring” (for one who must be emotive and original) Windows; and Gates, the “unnecessary” (for one who must be rational and practical) iPhone; or for Bruce Lee to have donned a sari to serve the poor and needy on bended knees; or for Mother Teresa to have created the formidable One-Inch Punch and set about the world to challenge people to fistfights! simply because it is not in their nature to do so. Each of these and other world leaders simply (but not easily, we can almost be certain) acted at the behest—or some might say, “calling”—of their natural imperatives.

A System of Nine Basic and Universal IDEALS

Natural Imperatives are derived from our personal IDEALS: Charity is good, Power is good, Success is good, Aspiration (and Originality) is good, etc. Based on our neuropsychological factors of “Heart,” “Head,” and “Gut,” our personal IDEALS can be emotive, cognitive, or instinctive; and, within each of these three preferred faculties, one can be oriented toward her inner (introverted), the external (extraverted), or relational (ambiverted) domains of reality; resulting in nine basic and universal IDEALS:

Extraverted-instinct: Power and Vitality is good.

Introverted-instinct: Perfection and Integrity is good.

Interverted-instinct: Preservation and Stability is good.

Extraverted-emotion: Fascination and Vivacity is good.

Introverted-emotion: Aspiration and Identity is good.

Interverted-emotion: Charity and Intimacy is good.

Extraverted-thinking: Success and Profitability is good.

Introverted-thinking: Knowledge and Perceptivity is good.

Interverted-thinking: Security and Predictability is good.

In accordance with our Triune Neurobiology, whereby each of us is composed of “Heart” and “Head” and “Gut,” we should have (at least) one dominant IDEAL from each of our three neuropsychological factors. As did Mother Teresa (Charity + Security + Preservation = The Samaritan), Bruce Lee (Power + Security + Aspiration = The Pugilist), Steve Jobs’ Apple (Aspiration + Success + Power = The Demiurge), and Bill Gates’ Microsoft (Knowledge + Care + Power = The Kingmaker). Each of these extraordinary leaders “merely” follows his/her trio of natural imperatives:

We create what we each value, and are valued for what we create.

You may be charting a vision for your business or your brand, or you may be reconsidering a career: If you “like” it—with your heart and mind and gut—with all that you are, so to say—then it likely is “it.”

_____

Aristotle. 2014 (350 BCE). Nichomachean Ethics. Translated by Roger Crisp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 3.

Dalio, Ray. 2017. Principles. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kim, W. Chan, and Renée Mauborgne. 2005. Blue Ocean Strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Branson, Richard. 2007. Screw It, Let's Do It: Lessons in Life and Business. London: Ebury.

Wolff, Christian. 2003 (1720). “Reasonable Thoughts About the Actions of Men, for the Promotion of Their Happiness.” In Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant, edited by J. B. Schneewind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 333–350.

Kant, Immanuel. 2012 (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann. New York: Cambridge University Press.

_____