In a search to be more in the “present” I’ve been experimenting with my running schedule. Yesterday, I ran through the length of skid row with an iPod as part of my run. I felt aware and constantly on guard. Unconsciously I increased my pace multiple times. When I finished, I was physically and mentally more tired than I am on runs of comparable distance. I was sweatier too.

There are two transhumanist architects who believed that people die of old age because they become too comfortable. In response, they built confusing, complicated houses that kept people active, confused and constantly disoriented. They had almost no places to sit down and the floor was made up of rocky, uneven material that looked like a children’s playground. The couple believed that you could permanently postpone death by living in one of these houses. Now that sounds like bullshit shit to me, however, I have noticed then when I go on unfamiliar runs, I am more “present” and alert. I feel better and more invigorated after I finish.

In human evolution, there would have been two types of running. The first would be for travel. The Greeks had messengers who would quickly run long distances to deliver a message. The other would been survival-mode – short sprints to avoid a fight or predator or a fire. I feel like most exercise we do is in the style of the first kind, for instance, on a treadmill. It’s not nearly as stimulative as the second kind, which requires critical decision making and alertness. Also, there is a greater incentive to be good at the latter because it is a life or death issue.

I would guess that exercise in unfamiliar or confusing terrain is better for you than running at the gym or on a regular, nightly course. I wonder if adding a sense of urgency, like someone chasing you or a dangerous neighborhood, is better mentally as well as physically because you don’t ever get in ‘the zone’. If you’re practicing being in the present, the transhumanist logic may have some merit.

(Seth Robert’s “My Theory of Human Evolution” always make me think)

“Always ask any questions that are to be asked and never answer any. Turn everything you hear to your own advantage. Always carry a repair outfit. Take left turns as much as possible. Never apply your front brake first.

‘If you follow them’, said the Sergeant, ‘you will save your soul and never get a fall on a slippery road.”

The Third Policeman is a mindfuck.

Community organizing is the means through which small, local groups collaborate to, often through what’s known as politicial jujitsu, implement incremental change. You might recall hearing it mentioned in connection with Obama, who learned it working with activist groups in Chicago. There is a deep connection between Alinsky’s tactics for community organizing and how strategy plays out over the internet.

His first tenet is the community part. Resource poor, community organizers are forced to rely on existing infrastructure. In other words, you need to intimately know the terrain and makeup of the community you’re working with. This seems obvious but it happens to contradict the operating procedure of nearly every political or social organization of any prominence – groups run by outside money, represented by leaders from different economic backgrounds, all speaking condescendingly about the “little guy.” Victor Davis Hanson illustrated Alinsky’s principal nicely when he much of the morale problem in Vietnam came from the fact that not enough leaders were dying with their troops. Alinsky thrived by noticing undervalued opportunities and then using the momentum to invigorate long disillusioned groups. The intimate knowledge of a group’s traditions was not just a way to know what a community needs, but also what assets they have available to use. People, he said, are the terrain.

The second most important Alinsky principal is what he calls “mass political jujitsu.” This is the concept of using the weight of something against itself. Alinsky once advised a group of students fighting against an archaic university administration who infringed on the rights of its students. So he asked, what is one thing the school does allow you to do? Chew gum, they said. He instructed each student to buy as much gum as they could possible chew and to discard it all over campus. A month later, the school called a meeting: ‘Alright, alright! We’ll change the rules but whatever they are, no more gum.” In jujitsu, one finds an opponents center of gravity and attacks that point to throw them off balance. In community organizing, a leader sniffs for weakness like hypocrisy, reputation, bad press, shame, embarrassment, and picks at it until it bursts.

The third is to abandon pretense, idealism and the notion of nice, neat solutions. Think about what the first two tenets require. First, you have to combine disparate and often competing groups into a coalition. Thus, a great deal of compromise. Second, you’re attempting to use your lack of resources as a weapon, essentially exploiting the humanness of your cause for attention, anger, pity or acquiescence. You can do this only if you’ve accepted that things are not only desperate but that the ends justify the means. If you’re a David attacking a Goliath, you’re not after a clean victory. Community organizing is about an honest awareness of what you’re after and being willing to do whatever it takes to get there.

Alinsky summed up the proper mindset of a community organizer this way:

“As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working within the system.”

To recap, community organizing is a way for leaders to use their expansive knowledge of local terrain to take on causes much bigger than themselves. By thinking of media and emotional pressures as a weapon, a community organizers get real world, tangible solutions. They work within the system in the sense that they understand the restraints it puts on their opponents and use it to bring them to account.

This is Part 1 of our series What Do I Need to Know?. Further recommended reading on this topic:

Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky

Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky: His Life and Legacy by Sanford D. Horwitt

1972 Playboy interview with Saul Alinsky

For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone (MSNBC)

Democrats and the Legacy of Activist Saul Alinsky (NPR)

Rules for Radicals: Working within The System (RyanHoliday.net)