One approach to the field of Ethics is to look at

1. THE DEFINITION : Is it in the interests of the common good.

2. THE TEST : Would you take the above defined ethical action even if it involved a sacrifice on your part?

a) Defining what is in the common good.
b) Hierarchy of different “common goods”

A Family Business -by Sisyphus



Sometimes it’s best to just take the money on the table…and start afresh. I stumble out of bed and the weight on my shoulders stumbles with me into the washroom.

My family is a 50% shareholder in a 22 year old business. We supplied all of the equity capital and invested all our money in the company. My brother in law who is an analytical chemist would run the company until retirement at age 65. He had 19 years ahead of him.

For his technical know-how and day-to-day operational management, his family was given 50% of the company – lesson number 1.

Despite years of losses, he was paid a salary while I didn’t take out any cash – lesson number 2.

Upon his request, I hired his son to do a job of maintaining the ISO system that was largely developed by my cousin. Mistake number 3.

I invited all family members to board meetings – mistake number 4.

Lessons 5, 6, 7, 8…followed…and still follows.

Now I am faced with the prospect that I am a participant, a protesting one, but a participant nonetheless, in the destruction of value and the loss of jobs.

My partner wants to invoke a liquidation clause in a badly drawn “partnership agreement” by a very expensive law firm. I hope you’re still counting.

This clause states that if he offers to buy me out, I can buy him out at the same value. Failing which, we liquidate the company. This makes no sense now. When it was a much smaller company it may have. I don’t know. For whatever reason, the expensive law firm included it and it sounded reasonable since neither of us knew a damn thing about business failure or rescue, mediation or arbitration.

How the @#$% do you just liquidate a profitable company with no thought for the misery and hardship that will follow?

He wasn’t always this way. Some say he is still a “nice person”. But regarding the issue of the business and myself, he becomes a litigious demon.

We had a very harmonious relationship for the first 5 years, while the company was losing money, and I was providing it.

Then, unfortunately, we started making a profit. And like the discovery of any natural resource in Africa, greed gave way to conflict.

Our relationship changed. He became resentful that I wasn’t working on-site at the company. He felt he was the brains of the company and its most valuable employee. Most technical people do. I’m a doctor. I know.

After listening to his passive aggressive resentment, I left medicine and Canada to relocate to South Africa to help run the business on-site.

After selling my home, handing in my resignation to the hospital I worked at, and undergoing the stress and cost of relocating a young family, I discovered something I hadn’t expected. Within a few months it became clear that my presence on site was a nuisance. He wanted me close, but not too close. My boundary was quickly communicated to me – stick to the Finance department. Don’t poke your nose in operations.

😏. Fuck that.

2008 both of us signed an agreement that each would retire at age 65, with the option to renew directorship by annual contract. Upon turning age 65, he initiated a series of actions intended to remove me as a director.
He is now 68 and seems perfectly happy to destroy the business. On Friday 15th March, I received an email from his lawyer stating that they intend to proceed with liquidating the company. He says the business is his brainchild. It seems he would rather it close than operate without him. He sees the business, not as something separate, but an extension of his ..ego. (Is it my ego that makes me want to keep the business running?)

Anyway. My ego wants a positive outcome for all. So yes. My ego is “better” than yours.

Flow, Dance, Play

The essence of suffering may be the result of an acute perception of time – a preoccupation with, and co-dependant responsibility for, both the anticipated future and shortcomings in maximizing the outcomes of events past.

Guilt is the result of memories. But memories do not accurately record the events of the past. Like mischievous imps, they add to and subtract from the whole truth.

Neurosis is not necessarily an indication of disease but a dis-ease, due to a highly sensitive empathy.

Both guilt and anxiety must be reduced by paradoxically allowing both to flow through.

Flow. Do not numb or push away. Let all perceptions flow. Let awareness be open – open not only to those people or media who are most insistent and demanding but to all information; especially that which quietly goes by ignored.

Allow guilt and fear to pass through.

They must not dam up and prevent new perceptions flowing in.
This resulting reclaimed space, an openness of mind, has a place to allow uncolored observations, and subtly layered thoughts, to dance and play in your mind.

Flow. Dance. Play. 🙂