“I’m grateful every day for the nearly invisible perfect things that I count on… but, and I feel spoiled to say this, I take the perfect for granted. I’m way more interested, and spend far more time and money on the imperfect things, the things that might not work, the ideas and services and products that dance around the edges.”
I agree. Over time, the perfection of processes has freed ever more of us up to spend ever more time on the interesting, edgy things – telling stories instead of fetching water, making art instead of travelling for days on end, connecting with and trusting strangers instead of only dealing with people we already know.
But I also disagree with Seth’s apparent suggestion that you can only have one or the other, perfect process or interesting edge, invisible clockwork or flesh and blood.
For me the fascinating challenge is to how to combine both.
How do you put enough process in place to make sure that what should be invisible stays invisible, without restricting the free exploration that discovers new edges?
How do you ensure that clockwork perfection supports and enables flesh and blood to dance around the edges, making things more human, more emotional, more daring?
If a process framework is like a musical score, how do you make it more jazz than classical?
I don’t have a perfect answer, but it’s a very interesting edge to be dancing on.