I am excited and honored to sit on the
Bootstrap 101 panel during SWSX. The Interactive portion of this event is proof that life reflects art and art reflects life, and business, deservedly is an art. This is probably why so many terms used by artists and entrepreneurs are so interchangeable. Art in its highest form is an inspiration of the spirit of mankind. When great artists deliver great art it transforms us, allowing us to view other possibilities, provoking thought and furthering the evolution of mankind.
Each work of art embodies the VISION of its creator(s), following the intent and values from their own unique experience of life. This is why the success of companies that have had a massive effect on the world such as Google and Apple can only be explained in reverse.
One of the unique properties that business provides to art is the ability of its practical participation. Where other art such as music, writing, and painting engage thought faculties that are much more boundless, the restrictions of material application force the entrepreneur artist many more restrictions. Works of art in the business community must have a buy-off from the collective and it must invoke action in the world. The entrepreneur artist must continue to have an ongoing magnetic presence where the collective world can interact.
It is inspirational that SXSW has recognized business in this category, and fittingly so.
Danny Gutknecht is the artist/Evangelist/cofounder of InHouse Assist.
Nassim Talib is author of of a fantastic book, "
Fooled by Randomness." In this
article, he explains the "
meaning precedes action" myth that pervades current thinking on innovation and entrepreneurship.
Bijoy was
interviewed on bootstrapping on
Business District Radio Show. The show airs on Sundays at 3pm on 1370AM in Austin and is hosted by
Jason Myers, founder of Business District. Podcasts of all the shows are available
here.
Michael Bell of
Deal Hack interviewed Bijoy for their May
podcast.
Links to all podcasts are also on the
Bootrap.
I was recently in DC over my birthday weekend, which also happened to coincide with the second anniversary of my becoming a US citizen. Walking around the Capitol I was reminded of how the US itself is a Bootstrap.
A couple of aspects are particularly striking in this analogy. First, "version 1.0" (or was it the demo?!) under the
Articles of Confederation, was a disaster, giving states too much power and leaving a weak central government. This became evident as the "United States" were not quite so united and instead found themselves on the brink of economic disaster just ten years into the grand experiment. It took version 2.0 -
the Constitution - to get it right. And even that first version was unsatisfactory, with the Bill of Rights quickly introduced as the first
amendment. The founding fathers, contrary to our general mythologizing of them, did not know if their first attempt would work. The US, like great products, did not come out of the womb perfectly formed. However, it was the lessons learned from the first version that showed what didn't work. This is akin to the bootstrap entrepreneur starting with the demo and then based on feedback from the customer, improving it till it works. We can therefore call the founding fathers excellent bootstrappers! Furthermore, it is precisely the fact that they built in the process for how the document could be amended that also makes the Constitution like a Bootstrap product - always subject to change as new input comes in.
Second, it is interesting how the Evangelists of "America the Bootstrap," take center stage while the Mavens stay in the background. Walking around the various monuments, we see the towering figure of Jefferson in his grand rotunda. In sharp contrast, George Mason's Memorial sits off to the side and is much smaller. It was Mason's Virginia Bill of Rights which served as a blueprint for the US one. Similarly,
James Madison is another unsung Maven, with no monument of his own. He not only saw the failure of the Articles, but almost single-handedly
organized the Constitutional Convention, convincing Washington to preside. It's good there's all that space around the Mall to correct that in the future!
If we ever forget that the US is an ongoing bootstrap venture, we have only to examine the
Star Spangled Banner, the nation's anthem. It ends not in a declarative statement as seems when sung, but in a question:
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
And the moment any venture stops living in the question, it's goodbye time.
We have many discussions within Bootstrap about Peer Production and
Open Source. In fact, our upcoming
Web subgroup meeting is focused on just this topic.
The wiki definition of
commons-based peer production says that it is "new." On a recent trip to DC and a visit to the
Freer Gallery, I was struck by the realization that Hinduism (unlike most other religions), adopted a peer production/open source approach, thus making it one of oldest examples of the concept.
How does it work this way? Under Hinduism, only a few basic core concepts are articulated, particularly around the form and nature of God (
Brahma,
Vishnu,
Shiva as Creator/Preserver/Destroyer), with some core texts such as the
Upanishad and
Bhagavad Gita. Beyond this, however, adherents are allowed to create and worship any particular manifestations of God that they like. One therefore finds hundreds of gods that are worshipped and venerated all across India, various mythological stories and a wide variety of practices and traditions. Particular temples are dedicated to a specific god and, in effect, adopt a similar structure to many open source organizations that monetize their work by charging for entrance fees, special offerings, etc. Anyone can become a "
guru" espousing their particular method or approach simply by declaring themselves as such. The marketplace of adherents determines their validity. Even with regard to the texts, there is no notion that these are "official" in any capacity. Adherents are free to subscribe to any set of mythologies, gods, traditions, gurus, etc, that they deem fit. A Hindu is one simply by virtue of self declaration.
There are also analogies to the the
Starfish/Spider concept in that there is no central authority in Hinduism and everyone is free to create and worship whatever aspect they choose. This also in part, explains why Buddhism, though "invented" in India, never took root there. Hindus simply acknowledged it as an aspect of the larger "open source Hindu" concept.
Interestingly, in its early days, Christianity also operated under similar guidelines, with a plethora of gospels all with unique interpretations of Jesus' teachings. It was only 300 years later that it moved away from a peer-production model when
Constantine formalized and adopted Christianity as the state religion of Rome. In contrast with Hinduism, subsequent
contentions about core ideology resulted violent
suppression and subsequent splits from the central church.
What allowed Hinduism to resist the urge towards centralizion and control? Perhaps one reason was the lack of a founder, which alleviates issues of succession that other movements had; and more importantly, no conflicts over what the founder said and meant by his words. Furthermore, there is an
intrinsic allowance and encouragement of individual interpretations (to fork the code, as it were). Hindu scholars will no doubt, be able to enlighten us on these topics.
All of these discussions are relevant to all peer production and open source movements including the Bootstrap Network.
Kevin
blogs about this week's developments at
Bootstrap Austin, including our talk at SXSW and the demo of
BootKarma.
Innertee is a member of Bootstrap Austin and is featured on CNET's
Webware site. Congrats!
