sábado, 24 de septiembre de 2016

Team and Strategy, Fred Wilson

Team and Strategy – AVC
Most of the companies I work with didn’t really start out with a strategy. They started out with an idea that turned into a great product that found a fit with a market. And they jumped on that and used it to build a company. Most of them wake up at some point and realize that a single product in a single market is not a strategy and they need to come up with a plan to get a lot bigger and build a sustainable and defensible business. I like to think that this is one place where a good investor group can help. If we are doing our job, we push our portfolio companies to work on their long term strategy and refine it to the point where it makes sense and is executable. But an investor group cannot give a company a strategy. It has to come from the founder/CEO and a small group of senior leaders. The smaller the group that is working on strategy, the better. Strategy is not something that can be done by committee.

The Internet Economy, Chris Dixon

The Internet Economy – Medium
The next big step will be for the very concept of the “device” to fade away. Over time, the computer itself — whatever its form factor — will be an intelligent assistant helping you through your day. We will move from mobile first to an AI first world.
This would mean that AI interfaces — which in most cases will mean voice interfaces — could become the master routers of the internet economic loop, rendering many of the other layers interchangeable or irrelevant. Voice is mostly a novelty today, but in technology the next big thing often starts out looking that way.

domingo, 18 de septiembre de 2016

Sin duda "el trabajo" está cambiando

 … ¿cuándo lo harán las instituciones y gobiernos?

Estas últimas 24 horas he leído 3 artículos muy interesantes sobre nuevos enfoques laborales. Por no hablar de los últimos 24 meses, en los que la cuestión ha sido el final de l trabajo por la robotización.

Estos tres artículos me han animado a escribir un par de ideas:

El primero ha sido What Amazon's New 30-Hour Work Week Means For Millennials.

En Amazon han planteado una jornada de 30 horas semanales, con el 75% del sueldo respecto a la de 40 horas. Esto tiene implicaciones no solo para los trabajadores más jóvenes, los llamados millennials (que se supone quieren iniciar sus propios proyectos, obtener doctorados y tener algún ingresado asegurado), sino que también los tiene para los trabajadores "responsables de una familia", permitiéndoles conciliar mejor la vida laboral y familiar, donde por cierto está el origen de este programa.

Particularmente creo que esto debería generar algo más de empleo, especialmente si los puestos no son todavía "robotizables". Por cierto hablar sobre eso requeriría otro artículo, para el que habría que documentarse muchísimo y aún así no llegar a la profundidad de opinión de un buen puñado de autores que han estado trabajando sobre ello.

Pero de lo que sí me permito hablar, y ya lo he hecho alguna vez, es que para que esas jornadas reducidas generen más empleo hace falta por parte de las empresas mejores procesos (lo que supone que en principio sólo se podrán beneficiar las grandes empresas) y por parte de la administración más flexibilidad y mejor justicia.

Contratar resulta caro, complejo, no es un acuerdo entre dos (empresa y trabajador) y a trabajar, es un acuerdo con un socio (paternalista y caro) que en la mayoría de los casos está gestionando nuestros dinero bastante ineficazmente. ¿Alguien siente que sus impuestos se gastan adecuadamente por parte de la administración o que sus contribuciones a la seguridad social le van a salir interesantes a la jubilación? No dudo que otros sistemas tendrán complejidades y riesgos, y se podrán dar injusticias, pero el escenario actual no es el mejor posible.  Y de nuevo escribir sobre esto requeriría muchas horas de preparación para hacerlo bien.

Pero es que la semana reducida ya es una idea que nos ronda la cabeza desde hace mucho. En gestión de proyectos (con muy buen criterio) se recomienda no considerar más que 6 horas de trabajo real al día, aunque la jornada laboral sea de 8 horas. Al final, entre que llegas, te paras por una distracción (casi siempre de un mando intermedio) y retomas el asunto se pierde mucho tiempo de "focus". Y se para a comer y todavía hay una cultura establecida de cumplir el horario en lugar de cumplir objetivos

Y aquí viene a cuento el segundo artículo, El tiempo que se tarda en llegar al trabajo "es trabajo", según sentencia europea.

Reflexionando no hace mucho como repartir las horas laborales mejor (yo pensaba entonces en alargar algunas horas de lunes a jueves o de martes a viernes y tener algún día más libre) me acordaba de los empresarios a los que, aunque por la actividad no sea necesario, les gusta tener una oficina y hacer ir cada día al trabajo a su equipo. Y para ahorrar en los costes de oficina, ponen éstas en algún polígono industrial en una población no precisamente cerca. A veces puede

Al menos para los casos que critico, por ejemplo una empresa comercial en la que sus comerciales se desplazan para estar en una reunión cuando el cliente "abra" y han de salir una hora antes, cuando hay un viaje de tren de una hora y media y el día es de 7 a 21 horas… esas horas hay que considerarlas de trabajo. Claro que también sería trabajo responder mails desde casa porque con el smartphone que te hemos dado "no vas a dejar de contestar a un cliente inmediatamente". Todo eso supone no dejar el trabajo nunca. Y lo malo no es que sea así, es que no se reconozca, no se gestione, no se cuide, no seamos capaces de adaptarnos, todos: clientes y proveedores. En definitiva las personas debemos pensar que no son robots (todavía) todo lo que hay al otro lado de nuestro terminal.

Y aquí llega de manera natural el tercer artículo, The full-stack employee

Para nuevos entornos de trabajo, nuevos trabajadores. La transversalidad al poder. La flexibilidad y la adaptabilidad como motores de un nuevo entorno laboral.
…los cambios más necesarios para empleadores y mandos son "de empatía", tanto hacia este nuevo tipo de empleado, pero también de ellos –haciendo demandas específicas  sobre como se comunican y colaboran–…
…la naturaleza del trabajo está cambiando, y y los empleados de mayor valor son aquellos que pueden manejar la ambigüedad y sintetizar enormes cantidades de información en tácticas útiles estratégicamente…

viernes, 16 de septiembre de 2016

Patience is a virtue lost on Silicon Valley

Why Silicon Valley is all wrong about Apple’s AirPods – Chris Messina – Medium

Here in Silicon Valley, we’re a bunch of inchoate Peter Pans, which affects how we approach relationships, how we design, build, and grow apps, and it affects our ability to relate to the people that use the things we make (because everything we make is soooo important, magical, revolutionary, changing the world, solving world hunger, making life less demanding by making everything available on-demand). Somehow (maybe it was the acid trip Jobs went on), Apple learned to take their time with products, and to pace their product evolution. They seem slow at times, but maybe it’s just because they resist the short-sighted approach that most tech companies feel forced to take to try to get ahead. That means most tech companies struggle to fully understand the problems they’re solving, and don’t stop to saddle up alongside their users to develop empathy—to really understand what their users are willing to put up with and what they never will.

martes, 16 de agosto de 2016

Tim Cook: 'Our goal has never been to make the most. It’s always been to make the best.' | The Washington Post

I thought the visibility went with Steve, not the company.


Tim Cook, the interview: Running Apple 'is sort of a lonely job' | The Washington Post

The global sales of PCs each year are about 275 million right now. That number’s been declining. The global market for smartphones is 1.4 billion. Over time, I’m convinced every person in the world will have a smartphone. That may take a while, and they won’t all have iPhones. But it is the greatest market on earth from a consumer electronics point of view.

Think about it: Families have a TV. Some families are fortunate enough to have multiple TVs. But if you looked at all the TVs in the world, it’s not one-to-one, and it’s not going to be one-to-one.

Look at the core technologies that make up the smartphone today and look at the ones that will be dominant in smartphones of the future — like AI. AI will make this product even more essential to you. It will become even a better assistant than it is today. So where you probably aren’t leaving home without it today — you’re really going to be connected to it in the future.

That level of performance is going to skyrocket. And there is nothing that’s going to replace it in the short term or in the intermediate term either.

I realize that the people who are focused on this 90-day clock say, “Oh, my God, the smartphone industry only grew by 1 percent or decreased by 6 percent.” You know, the global economy’s not that great right now. But if you’re in it for the long haul, this is the best market on earth.

I see enormous opportunity [in India]. There are still a fair number of people in this country who don’t have smartphones. They’re using flip phones or a feature phone. There are a lot of people switching from Android to iOS, and that’s huge for us because they have a lot more market share than we do, from a unit point of view. Our goal has never been to make the most. It’s always been to make the best.



I’m not saying we’re not going to do anything else. I’m saying this is still an unbelievable product category to be in, and not just for this quarter, year or for years. So I would not want anybody to think this, oh, this “better days are behind us” thing.


Some analysts have said that.

And it doesn’t bother me. Because honestly, they were saying that about Apple in 2001. They were saying it in 2005. They were saying it in 2007 — ‘this stupid iPhone, whoever dreamed up this thing?’ Then they were saying that we peaked in 2010, then it was 2011. We got to $60 billion [in revenue], and they said you can’t grow anymore from this. Well, last year we were $230 billion. And, yes, we’re coming down some this year. Every year isn’t an up, you know. I’ve heard all of it before. And I don’t subscribe to it because it’s traditional thinking in a lot of ways: You can’t get large because you are large.




But what about in terms of running the company?

I learned that the scrutiny was much higher than I thought. Media interest and scrutiny — social networking was taking off at that time — and so a lot of the “love,” so to speak, and interest from customers, I think transfers to media interest as well. And so there’s a lot of visibility on the company. We can do very few things without it being reported somewhere.


You and Alan Greenspan or Janet Yellen would probably have a lot to talk about. It seems like every word you say is scrutinized. How do you get used to that?

You don’t. … You build up —my skin got materially thicker after August 2011. … I think I’m a bit better today about compartmentalizing things and not taking everything so personally.

That was just downright shocking to me, honestly. I thought the visibility went with Steve, not the company. And so I thought with a different CEO, with me, that would instantly change. It didn’t.


With the fight with the FBI, did you have any idea what you were getting into?

… it became clear what was right when we did the first piece of work: Could we create a tool to unlock the phone? After a few days, we had determined yes, we could. Then the question was, ethically, should we? We thought, you know, that depends on whether we could contain it or not. Other people were involved in this, too — deep security experts and so forth, and it was apparent from those discussions that we couldn’t be assured.

The risk of what happens if it got out, we felt, could be incredibly terrible for public safety.

We knew the positioning on the outside would not be public safety. It would be security vs. privacy — security should win. But we went through the deep, deep, deep discussions on that. It became clear that the trade-off, so to speak, was essentially putting hundreds of millions of people at risk for a phone that may or may not have anything on it, and that likely didn’t, because of other things that we knew about. We thought this actually is a clear decision. A hard one, but a clear one. Then it became more of a matter of how do we explain this. Because this is not easy. You can imagine. You just hear: locked phone. Terrorist. People dead. Why aren’t you unlocking this?



Customers should have an expectation that they shouldn’t need a PhD in computer science to protect themselves. So I think they depend on us to do some things on their behalf. So with that responsibility comes an obligation to stand up. And, in this case, it was unbelievably uncomfortable and not something that we wished for, wanted — we didn’t even think it was right. Honestly? I was shocked that they would even ask for this. That was the thing that was so disappointing that I think everybody lost in the whole thing. There are 200-plus other countries in the world. Zero of them had ever asked this.



But in terms of privacy… There’s a broader thing in play. Privacy, in my point of view, is a civil liberty that our Founding Fathers thought of a long time ago and concluded it was an essential part of what it was to be an American. Sort of on the level, if you will, with freedom of speech, freedom of the press. The other thing is how all this data sits out there in different places. I do worry about people not really understanding deeply about what kinds of things are out there about them.



Do you have a concern about privacy as you push into AI?

No. I think that talented people can come up with fantastic ways of using AI without violating privacy. There’s a new technology called differential privacy which essentially looks at large data sets to predict user behaviors and requests without going to the precise individual, which might violate privacy.



Back in 2009, you said, “We believe in saying no to thousands of projects." Name one product or project in the past five years you have put on the shelf.

[Laughs]. I don’t know if I want to do that, because it gives competition some heads-up about things. But be assured that we have. More than one. Because the wonderful thing about Apple is there are many ideas about doing things. We have resources to do a few, but you can only do a few things deep and well, and so you have to say no and have debates about what things are in versus out. So more than one big thing has left the page.



We don’t have divisions. We’ve elected not to do what business school, and I think every other larger company, does: They break down their company into smaller divisions. They give each division a P&L, and each division does their own marketing and communications and operations.

We always re-challenge ourselves on this question. But we keep coming back to what the customer wants from us is a user experience that is seamless. They want to start working on whatever they’re working on from their iPhone. And then they want to go to the Mac, and they want it to be absolutely seamless. The only way to assure that is to do things once.



When you look back, are there mistakes you’ve made that you’ve learned something from?

Maps was a mistake. … I hired the wrong person for retail initially. …

It’s sort of a lonely job. The adage that it’s lonely — the CEO job is lonely — is accurate in a lot of ways. I’m not looking for any sympathy. You have to recognize that you have blind spots. We all do. Blind spots move, and you want to not just have really bright people around you, but people who will push on you and people to bring out the best in you. People that amplify whatever you’re good at. And then also the people who plug the parts that you’re not and may never be.



At the end of every board meeting, I discuss succession with the board because I might step off the wrong curb or something. We have the good discipline to do that. Then my role is to make sure that the board has great candidates to pick from internally. And I take that role extremely seriously. Look around at the great people I get to work with — there’s some really just superb talent in the company.



You’ve made more acquisitions at Apple…
At its current size, does Apple need big acquisitions like that to grow?

Do we need them? No. But we always are looking for companies that have really talented people and great intellectual property, and when we find them we do acquire them. …

I think we’ll continue to acquire companies.

We clearly are capable of doing it both from a management-depth point of view and a financial point of view. But we’d only do it if it were great for Apple strategically. We don’t acquire for revenue. So the essential for us is the talent and/or [intellectual property]. Those are the things that we optimize around. …



… Let’s talk about China. How much are you worried about competitive and regulatory threats there?

We make our investment decisions based on long term. We have to report every 90 days because that’s the rules, but it’s not how we run the company. So as I look in the long term, I think China is an unbelievable market — not only from a demand point of view and the revenue potential there, but also as a great source of talent. We have over a million and a half developers there. The reach is unbelievable. There are, sort of, speed bumps now with the economy. In a year-ago quarter, we were up 112 percent. So I think you have to back up and put it in perspective. If you look at it over a two-year basis, we were up over 50 percent in the quarter.



We were talking about getting advice from people before your first testimony on Capitol Hill. That hearing focused on the corporate taxes Apple pays. Apple is now awaiting a European Union ruling on whether you owe billions in back taxes, and corporate tax reform is a big election-year issue. Does either a Trump or a Clinton campaign give you or the company any hope that there could be corporate tax reform anytime soon?

I think it’s in the best interest of the U.S. to have corporate tax reform, regardless of which political party is in charge of the White House. Because if you look at it, the U.S. rules today are that international companies like us and many others can keep their earnings that they earn overseas overseas, and then when they bring them back it triggers the tax liability.

What I’ve always felt should happen is that every dollar should be taxed immediately with no deferral. But as a consequence of doing that, you should have free flow of capital. What would happen is if a system like that were put in place, it should have more investment going into the United States. We’re the only major country in the world that has a system like this. It’s not good for the U.S., it’s not good for the economy, it’s not good for jobs, it’s not good for investments.

I think there’s wide agreement to that in both parties, by the way. There’s a difference of view with different people about how to fix it, but I think everybody agrees the current system isn’t working. So I’m optimistic that, in 2017, there will be some sort of corporate tax reform. The U.S. needs to invest more in infrastructure — so what would be great is, if they take the tax proceeds of a corporate tax reform and invest it in infrastructure and roads and bridges and airports.



What do you say in response to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz’s comments on Bloomberg [television], where he called Apple’s profit reporting in Ireland a “fraud”?

… The money that’s in Ireland that he’s probably referring to is money that is subject to U.S. taxes. The tax law right now says we can keep that in Ireland or we can bring it back. And when we bring it back, we will pay 35 percent federal tax and then a weighted average across the states that we’re in, which is about 5 percent, so think of it as 40 percent. We’ve said at 40 percent, we’re not going to bring it back until there’s a fair rate. There’s no debate about it. Is that legal to do or not legal to do? It is legal to do. It is the current tax law. It’s not a matter of being patriotic or not patriotic. It doesn’t go that the more you pay, the more patriotic you are.

And so what we’ve said — we think it’s fine for us to pay more, because right now we’re paying nothing on that and we leave it over there. But we — like many, many other companies do — wait for the money to come back.

In the meantime, it’s important to look at what we do pay. Our marginal rate, our effective rate in the U.S. is over 30 percent. We are the largest taxpayer in the United States. And so we’re not a tax dodger. We pay our share and then some. We don’t have these big loopholes that other people talk about. The only kind of major tax credit that we get is the R&D tax credit, which is available to all companies in the United States. That’s important to know. The second thing I would point out is we have money internationally because we have two-thirds of our business there. So we earn money internationally. We didn’t look for a tax haven or something to put it somewhere. We sell a lot of product everywhere. And we want to bring it back, and we’ve been very honest and straightforward about that.



It’s important for everyone to understand that the allegation made in the E.U. is that Ireland gave us a special deal. Ireland denies that. The structure we have was applicable to everybody -it wasn’t something that was done unique to Apple. It was their law.

And the basic controversy at the root of this is, people really aren’t arguing that Apple should pay more taxes. They’re arguing about who they should be paid to. And so there’s a tug of war going on between the countries of how you allocate profits.



… In a tech industry where companies are trying to be “all things to all people,” how does Apple’s longtime philosophy of simplicity, and being very focused, move it forward?

It’s as important as it ever was. We’re a bit larger today, so we can do a bit more than we could do 10 years ago or even five years ago. But we still have, for our size, an extremely focused product line. You can literally put every product we make on this table. That really is an indication of how focused it is. I think that’s a good thing. Regardless of who you are, there’s only so many things that you can do at a very high-quality and deep, deep level — personally and in business. And so we’re not going to change that. That’s core to our model and way of thinking.

Apple has really ramped up spending in research and development. One analyst noted your R&D spending is now greater than what the 14 largest automakers spend, combined. What’s the most exciting technology out there to you right now?

That one I don’t want to answer, because it would give too much of an insight into the things we’re doing. But we have ramped up R&D because we are heavily investing in the future — both in current product lines and things that aren’t visible as well, including in services. In due time, some of those things will be visible. But there will always be other things that will replace those things that are invisible.

lunes, 15 de agosto de 2016

Tim Cook On Apple's Values, Mistakes, And Seeing Around Corners

"I’ve always thought that Apple’s primary role is to delight its customers."

Fast Company interview

"I think the smartphone itself as a window to the Internet, and as a window to people’s digital life, has a lot of legs and a lot of innovation left."

But we’re always thinking what’s behind the corner, as we always were and are. We just don’t talk about what those things are. I know some people struggle with that, but I still think it’s right. Not just right for Apple; people like things they can do now. They like to use products that do something now. Yes, we all like to think about the Jetsons. I’ve been thinking about the Jetsons since I was a kid. But occasionally you want the Jetsons to come to reality. That’s what Apple is so great at, productizing things and bringing it to you, so you can be a part of it.

You have to build a company that commands the ability to recruit the best and brightest. We are our people and that’s the sum of what we are able to do. We’re about people. People ultimately do everything here. Yes, we have IP. Yes, we have some real estate, but at the end of the day people can rip that off. People are the soul of the place. So how do you recruit the best people? That’s something we spend time on, to make sure we can do the best we can do. That’s the leadership and the management of the place.

More important than all that is the culture. Culture is the attraction of Apple. If you’re on the outside, why do you want to join Apple? You want to join Apple because you want to change the world. That was the attraction back in the garage, and that’s the attraction now. Now, the things 21-year-olds are looking for is different from back in 1978.

domingo, 7 de agosto de 2016

Juan Arnau: “La transformación social también tiene que ser interior”

No puedes nadar y guardar la ropa.

El siglo XX europeo se entretuvo demasiado con las filosofías del lamento (existencialistas) y las filosofías del lenguaje (analíticas). Es hora ya de acometer una filosofía de la percepción, una filosofía que aborde la cuestión de la sensibilidad, centrándose en el modo de ejercerla, de vivir sumergidos en ella

Juan Arnau: “La transformación social también tiene que ser interior” | Lecturas Sumergidasç


– ¿Puedes explicar más el concepto “yoga de la objetividad”?
–  Es un término que me gusta mucho y que utiliza el filósofo polaco Henryk Skolimowski, el autor de La mente participativa. El concepto alude al yoga como disciplina, a cómo nos hemos disciplinado en la objetividad y cómo la logramos. Lo que ha pasado es que la física se ha desarrollado tanto que ha dado lugar a dos teorías, la teoría de la relatividad y la de la física cuántica. Y las dos desdicen o desmienten el yoga de la objetividad. 
– ¿Crees que ya es hora de plantar cara a la primacía de la ciencia, de cuestionar la ciega confianza que genera?
– En La invención de la libertad lo que se plantea es la posibilidad de una nueva forma de hacer ciencia. Es un libro anticientificista, pero no anticiencia. El problema con la ciencia es que no se sabe muy bien lo que es y se tiende a creer que solo es una, cuando en realidad se trata de muchas disciplinas luchando entre ellas por legitimarse, por prestigio, por financiación. He ahí la complejidad y por eso hablar de la ciencia en general siempre es peligroso. Las ciencias son muchas y la visión del mundo que tienen no es uniforme, pero lo que sí es cierto es que durante los últimos siglos el dominio lo ha ejercido la cosmovisión físico-matemática. 
– Diciéndolo con otras palabras: ¿Lo que sucede es que tenemos una confianza excesiva en la razón, en todo lo que es demostrable, medible, y no prestamos atención a la parte irracional, emocional…?
– Bueno, hay que tener cuidado con la palabra razón, porque muchas veces se utiliza mal y todo lo que te estoy diciendo es muy racional. Una cosa es la medición y lo cuantitativo y lo que es matemáticamente expresable, y otra cosa son las emociones, que, aunque no cumplan estas condiciones, son algo muy racional también.
Hay quienes sostienen que lo que la ciencia dice el budismo lo expresó hace 2.000 años. Pues no es así, insisto. Tenemos que ver qué camino nos funciona mejor. Dependiendo del que elijamos será nuestra vida y la percepción del mundo que tengamos, porque estamos en un proyecto evolutivo y nuestro mundo está en función de nuestra actividad mental. Yo creo firmemente que hay gente que crea alrededor suyo espacios de gracia, espacios donde no suelen ocurrir calamidades, y hay gente que crea a su alrededor espacios de calamidad, y todo eso lo genera la propia mente. En la actualidad lo queremos todo, la solución total. Queremos el nirvana ya: gratis y rápido. Queremos la ciencia y queremos la espiritualidad. Y no puede ser así. Hay ciertos caminos que obturan otros y es lógico.
– Bueno, el budismo tiene una idea que es fascinante. Y es la idea de la vacuidad, que suele ser muy mal entendida, porque mucha gente la asocia con el vacío, con la nada, cuando lo que viene a decir es que las cosas se apoyan las unas en las otras, que nos necesitamos los unos a los otros, que no tenemos una naturaleza propia, ni nosotros, ni ninguna otra cosa. … Quiere decir que no hay en el mundo ninguna sustancia [en filosofía sustancia es algo que no necesita de otra cosa para existir]. El budismo dice que no hay ninguna sustancia, ni Dios ni nada; que no hay ninguna, que todo se apoya en todo.
– La solidaridad, la empatía, la unión de amplios colectivos, se valoran cada vez más ante la situación de crisis, de desmantelamiento de los derechos humanos, sociales, que estamos viviendo. La idea de que solamente juntos, aunando voluntades, podemos propiciar cambios, cada vez se asienta más. Al respecto, resulta muy oportuno lo que plantea Whitehead: “Las ideas mueven el mundo. En un primer momento sólo existen como suposiciones especulativas de pequeños grupos, pero, bajo determinadas circunstancias (cuando todo conspira a ello) pueden convertirse en fuerzas naturales que decanten un cambio de época
– Sí. Hay una sintonía manifiesta ahora mismo con lo que expone Whitehead. Eso es la naturaleza mental de la realidad. Que las ideas mueven el mundo está clarísimo. Se trata de la naturaleza mental de la realidad a la que me refería antes. Las ideas están ahí y llega un momento en el que se pueden materializar. Pero la transformación social también tiene que ser una transformación interior y eso es muy importante, porque volvemos a encontrarnos con el mismo problema. La ciencia nos ha alejado del corazón; incluso la propia modernidad, al liberarnos de las sotanas -hecho que ha estado muy bien- nos ha dejado sin ningún tipo de afectividad espiritual. Y quedarnos exclusivamente con el reto de “democracia real ya” es peligroso, porque la democracia real no va a arreglar la vida espiritual ni el corazón de nadie. Puede solucionar las condiciones de vida, pero es muy arriesgado poner todo en una transformación social, es muy arriesgado poner esa utopía como único motor de la vida. Hay que cultivar también el interior.
En términos budistas esa idea, que los tres tocan tangencialmente, sería  que la libertad no es la posibilidad de elegir, sino un reajuste interior respecto a nuestros propios deseos. La libertad no consiste en “follow your dreams”; en el tan publicitado “lucha, esfuérzate y consigue tus sueños”. Eso es un eslogan del postcapitalismo que resulta muy rentable para las grandes corporaciones. La libertad es un reajuste interior que consiste en saber separarse un poco de los deseos.
Hay un episodio en la vida de Buda que a mí me gusta mucho, donde se habla de Angulimala, un ladrón que vive en un bosque y tiene una terrible fama de sanguinario. Nadie quiere entrar en el bosque porque se le teme; lo tiene tomado y sólo acceden caravanas de cien personas, pero un día el Buda entra solo y el ladrón se siente ofendido. “¿Cómo se atreve? Voy a destrozarlo”, piensa, y decide ir tras él. El Buda sigue andando y Angulimala empieza a correr, pero cuanto más corre más se aleja el Buda. Y al final le dice: “Detente forastero”, a lo que el Buda le contesta: “No, detente tú. Yo ya me detuve hace mucho tiempo”. Es una imagen que me gusta mucho. Yo ya me detuve. Ya dejé de ser una marioneta de mis deseos. Ya supe salir de esa prisión. Ese frenarse, insisto, es primordial. Aquí hay una gran enseñanza.
– Ya que estamos con William James, una de las ideas básicas de su pensamiento, según expones en el ensayo, es que “la vida es navegación”. Entender la vida como camino, como búsqueda, como conocimiento, es algo que recorre toda la tradición filosófica, desde sus comienzos.
– Sí. Sin duda esto es algo fundamental. Estamos aquí para conocernos. No estamos para buscar la felicidad, estamos para conocernos. Si logramos algo de conocimiento siempre nos llegará algo de felicidad, de alegría. A mí me gusta más la palabra alegría que la palabra felicidad, porque el término felicidad está demasiado manipulado. La felicidad es algo que se vende.
– Tanto William James como Bergson y Whitehead son tres convencidos defensores de las humanidades.
– Así es, y este aspecto es importante en el libro, porque vivimos una guerra latente que no es entre ciencias y letras. La guerra es entre humanistas y tecnócratas. Y la batalla la van ganando los segundos. La invención de la libertad es una defensa del humanismo, porque yo soy de los que creen firmemente que lo que dice Cicerón sobre la vida me va a enseñar mucho más que una fórmula matemática sobre el funcionamiento del cerebro, o que una novela de Dickens me va a ayudar más en la vida que un tratado de geometría descriptiva.