To understand each other better and to make ourselves understood, it is not only important to be able to be objective but also to put the different subjectivities "in conversation", hoping that differences do not cancel each other out and that they build novelty.

What happens to you when someone tells you that you need to "think outside the box"? And when you are told, in the same sequence, that you need to "get out of your comfort zone"? If you are like me, when I hear either of those two expressions, that I get a kind of metaphysical hives, the least will be something close to rolling your eyes. I believe there are good reasons for an adverse reaction.

The need to get answers has left some of us with the presumption of knowing them all, for ourselves and, worse, for others.

Imagine a child, at the age of four, handling some kind of toy. Suddenly, one of the pieces of that toy separates from what was until then a whole. There is no possible arrangement, no "u-h-u" or "super three" to save the situation. What does the child say?

The obsession with the search for ultimate meaning, if everything one does is aligned with a predefined or desired purpose where will the space and time for experimentation reside? And for novelty? And the space for not knowing what the outcome will be?

Isn't the time for questions precious? And the questions themselves? So precious that it should be a serious offence and we should lose points for every time we ask a question without knowing why we are asking it.

Try stopping for once.

By setting the virtual world in opposition to the real world, it is as if the virtual-digital were not part of reality but a kind of simulacrum. Let us not run that risk.

Bureaucracy is like a forced, fabricated nihilism, which pushes us into senseless actions, with no purpose other than the fulfilment of imposed rules through the mindless repetition of certain rituals. The consequence, as we can observe and experience in our daily lives, is the diminishing of the condition that makes us human: our capacity to create and to imagine and to think ourselves.

The role of flexibility and adaptability, rigidity and control in thinking and opinions.

As far as time is concerned, there are no hoots but there are "mouths"; those who leave on time or work "only" for the time stipulated in their contract are still looked down upon.

These days, both in love and obsessive, I look several times at the paintings of one and the photographs of the other and I dream that I am the one there. And, if it were, what would I be feeling?

The difference between a (good) psychotherapist and a ("good") conman lies fundamentally in the intention and integrity of the one and the other. While the interest of the former should be the promotion of the well-being of the other, the intention of the latter is personal gain at the expense of others.

A conversation, to be good and rich, is not just entertainment. It involves effort, dedication and a good dose of self-denial. Montaigne in his "Essays" said that the main reason why a conversation is unsatisfactory is that many people become defensive when their views are questioned. To have a conversation, really, we have to de-centre from ourselves.

It was imagined, or predicted, that we would work less and less and gain time for the pleasure of becoming better, wiser and more cultured. Idleness would no longer belong to the lazy and the fortunate, but would be available to all, or at least to many more. None of this happened.

It pains me more and more to live in a world that values the magnetism of those who enchant through their ideological mediocrity, without any respect for truth. The same world where status, often gained by who knows how, lights the way to high-profile stages. Too bad it does not illuminate in the same way the path that goes beyond a sensationalist superficiality.

I was recently talking to two colleagues about a learning experience one of them had conducted for a group of people from a client of ours. I had asked her how it had gone. Her response sparked such a conversation. We were trying to understand and define what would make our learning experiences different from so many others. How had we arrived at this model and style?

Before, when people wanted to become good, they were not as concerned with their skills (know-how) as they are today. They were concerned with their qualities or virtues (know-how). And, in an apparent paradox, the only way they could think of to achieve these virtues and qualities was through their consistent and constant application.