On the topic of bicycles and mutual inspiration

Mutual inspiration as it best is just like riding a bike - the way the pedals are mounted on a bike, at an angle of 180 degrees between the two pedal arms, makes the two legs of the human body work together in a perfect way: once one pedal has reached the bottom moved by one foot, it has at the same time put the other pedal in the optimal position to let the other foot push it down, after which it it is time to wait while the other foot makes its contribution. In the same way as two people in committed conversation or other interaction constantly have the opportunity to bring the common understanding forward. If the human body had had more feet, the metaphor could easily be extended to conversations among several people.
The metaphor can also be used to illustrate when the mutual inspiration is less optimal. If the two parties fully agree, they will have difficulties bringing each other further onwards - similar to the situation when a cyclist stands on one pedal with both feet. It might move that pedal to the bottom position faster, but once you get there, progress is limited. Or if one of the parties does not contribute - well, you can sit ever so correct on the bike, but if one leg hangs down passively and does not pedal, you will not get anywhere.
But the important thing is: if you sit correctly on the bike, and both feet participate, you go forward in a way that feels like you hardly have to make an effort. Which is exactly as mutual inspiration works when it is at its best.
(Translated from Noget om cykelture og gensidig inspiration)

Well - in which camp do I belong?

Once again, Rebecca Elvy has made me do some introspection. In her weekly newsletter, she asks her readers, which of the following three camps they're in:

• For some people, the racket is too much. They settle in for a non-eventful life, rich in routine and devoid of impact.
• Others lean toward this quiet life, because it seems like less effort… but deep down they wonder what else they could achieve…
• And a third group desperately want to achieve sometime massive, to make that personal leadership contribution, but they’re not sure where to start or in what domain their efforts should be spent.

Which made me wonder: where do I belong in that picture? And after some contemplation, I found myself to be somewhere between the ones who wonder what else they could achieve, and the ones who desperately want to achieve sometime massive - right now you could say that I am in some sort of hibernation state, where I am perfectly content with being doctor Watson to other people's Sherlock Holmes - the person who does not really do anything out of the ordinary to the table himself, but tries to faithfully bounce the brilliant balls back with a slight twist, when you throw them in my direction; hopefully with the symbiotic result that both of us get inspired.
At least, I have in multiple situations found myself to be inspired by all the brilliant people that I am so fortunate to interact with.
And the good thing - which indicates to me that for now, I am in the exactly right spot: each and every time someone says that I have been able to inspire, it feels like the only thing I really want to do...
(Translated from Ja, hvilken lejr tilhører jeg?)

More on the topic of selfishness, generosity and symbiosis

The other day I looked at the view point that content consumers can be said to be generous, whereas those who produce the content on the opposite can be regarded as selfish, and I did this very much with my focus on the selfish creators.
But it is at least as interesting to look at the generous consumers - because is it true: are the consumers always so generous?
In a sense, yes. All people who consume the content that I have created, I have to at least acknowledge that they generously spend their time on me. That's why I like to return to the story of Adam Grant and Daniel Pink in the backyard: in this world, where time is often considered our most precious resource, we waste people's resources if anything we have created makes them spend time that they could have used better elsewhere. (And if I let people's resources go to waste in that way, I have to consider any wish I have that they read my creations to be selfish).
But of course there are more or less generous consumers. As soon as the consumer begins to relate to the content and provide feedback, the level of generosity increases. I agree that the generosity of the keyboard warriors (who just use the creators' posts as a starting point to bring forward their own more or less off-topic conspiratory assumptions) is of such a limited extend that we would be better off without it. But the closer to the subject the given feedback is - and the more constructive inspiration, the creator can get out of it - the more generously the consumer acts towards the creator. This is perfectly obvious in situations where sequences of comments develop into mutually inspiring conversations, but even a single click on a Like-button can be seen as generosity - as the consumer hereby gives an expression of the type "more of the same kind, please".
For the same reason, I prefer five dedicated readers than 5000 that I hardly notice are there - because I, along with the five dedicated ones, can share much more symbiotic generosity in our common interest.
(Translated from Mere om egoisme, generøsitet og symbiose)

On the topic of selfishness, generosity and symbiosis

Once again, my dear friend Rebecca Elvy made me think - this time by putting forward the observation that "consuming content is at least as much an act of generosity as creating it. In fact, creating content is somewhat selfish. But it can't be completely selfish, because you share it..."
 After giving it some thought, I guess you could call those who create content selfish, as most creators do it because they live with some inner force that drives them to create the content; they simply have to create it, regardless of whether it is of interest to others or not, in order to satisfy this inner force. But in other ways it is selfless - because creators put their creations out there for us consumers to consume it (sometimes with a price tag, but the consumers accept that the content is much more valuable than what the creator demands to get for it).
But I think the most fruitful way point of view us to creators and consumers as being parts in a symbiotic relationship - at it's best, creators might create their content without having an audience in mind, but still most creators thrive on the feedback from the consumers; the consumers, on the other hand thrive on the content of the creators and offer their feedback in return - thereby creating a feedback loop which makes both creators and consumers better than they would be on their own - for which reason both the creators and the consumers are happy that the other part exists and spends time and energy on keeping the circuit alive. It is mutual inspiration at its best - and both creators and consumers see the other part as being generous, because both parts bring something to their common good. And either part consider herself the selfish one, because she benefits from her counterpart's generosity.
The trick is to seek these fruitful relations - because I recognise that there are other, less fruitful creator-consumer relationships out there, where each part tries to benefit as much as possible from the other part's generosity. The trick is to replace the "what's in it for me"-mindset with that of "I'm in it for you".
(Translated from Noget om egoisme, generøsitet og symbiose)