We're Not In This to Get Bought

"I’m in this to build something cool, not to get bought."

This quote really stuck in my head because it resonated with my values. I've remembered it since so it was easy to find now four months later when it seems that the right price just hadn't been struck yet: $750 million, naw.

I'm fine with people making a profit and having a roof over their heads, and perhaps Facebook was just a hobby that took on a life of its own. It probably never sprung from a seed desire to better the world or to help people realize their innate potential.

If it's Donald or Martha, I have the expectation that it will be about being bought, and that's upfront and transparent.

Still it's not really a big deal that the Facebook founder changed his mind, but I ran into pre-beta Facebook-like site that purports to really be about changing the world. But something seemed disingenuous when I read between the lines of the investor profiles, biz model, etc. I just wasn't buying "we're not here to be bought" story.

The January 2006 Common Ground Magazine insightfully asks in its article "Markets of Enlightenment": "Can “liberation,” “awakening” and “enlightenment” be bought and sold?" Sufi master Llewellyn Vaughn-Lee, whom I saw speak last November, in the same issue says that, "The spiritual values of the 1970s got hijacked by the self-development movement and became just another form of materialism." Yup. (p.s. Vaughn-Lee has some intriguing things there about places of power, women, and the Internet.)

I can relate to why Chris Locke's next book might just be: "No Love Lost: Narcissism & the New Age". Chris is definitely on the right track but goes too far in lumping all spirituality as bogus narcissism. I reckon if Chris actually met an enlightened person he'd expand his view (they're rarely celebrities - all that glitters is not gold; and I'm not either but I have met). The Bodhisattva ideal and felt sense that everyone is your brother or sister or yikes, even seamless to you, was obscured by the me-feel-good god-wants-what-I-want anything-goes rush of bliss ninnyhood. No wonder Jack drank himself to death.

What would it mean, for example, to seriously consider the implications of the "quantum leap" envisioned by Teilhard de Chardin, which, as Combs tells us, "has its own emergent properties that go far beyond the individual minds"? If we are to sincerely grapple with the implications of "living the integral life," then surely it means daring to open ourselves up to a potential "radiance of being" that is so positive, all-encompassing, and infused with purpose that it may propel us far beyond the relativistic field of our personal "needs and aspirations." - Book Review: The Radiance of Being by Allan Combs, What is Enlightenment? magazine

I understand many many many people may be motivated by their own personal desires. Been there and still dissolving those egoic tendencies in myself.

Last night a fellow artist mentions a friend that might be a suitable partner for our plans: "But he's still about making a killing." I shake my head even though I'm on the cell phone: "Wrong person then."

The right persons? She or he clicks with this:

There is an almost sensual longing for communion with others who have a larger vision. The immense fulfillment of the friendships between those engaged in furthering the evolution of consciousness has a quality almost impossible to describe. - Teilhard de Chardin

Update: On second thought my second blog post at Crossroads Dispatches over two years ago pretty much sums it up:

"In Africa, they say there are two hungers, the lesser hunger and the greater hunger. The lesser hunger is for the things that sustain life, the goods and services, and the money to pay for them, which we all need. The greater hunger is for an answer to the question "why?", for some understanding of what that life is for." - from "Hungry Spirit, Beyond Capitalism: A Quest for Purpose in the Modern World" by Charles Handy

I used to recommend Randy Komisar's book, The Monk and the Riddle, years ago and handed it like candy to freshly minted entrepreneurs with dollar signs in their eyes. Now more than ever that should be the first book a founder reads before they've polished up the Web 2.0 biz plan. (p.s. Randy's a VC these days.)

Comments

[Laura Moncur]

I followed your links and it appears that the Facebook people actually turned down the $750 Million offer. They have named their price ($2 Billion), but at that price, isn't that the same as saying, "We're not for sale"?

On another note, I believe we are all capitalists first and mystics second.

[Evelyn Rodriguez]

I have no idea what Facebook really meant by the $2B price or didn't mean, but why not just be straightforward & transparent then: "We're not for sale," if that was case? I was probably too harsh in this post and nearly deleted it one minute after posting - which I realized isn't done - hence, the update. I stand by high recommend to read The Monk & The Riddle.

My bigger issue was with unnamed Facebook-like company but I'd like to see them have a go at it and help transform lives so I didn't name names as Google, Techorati, etc would find this post.

I personally don't believe we're capitalists first, mystics second. Had an interesting week which I'm too chicken to blog about, but may be called for some sharing next week. It has to do with this passage. You can replace Universe or Consciousness for God, ego for devil if it helps. Of course, this begs a few more questions...but I'll let each of you contemplate that:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" - Matthew 3:16-4:4