When legacy is brought up in a conversation or as part of a mental exercise, there is usually some consensus of what one will leave to the next generation. One might begin to dwell upon one’s life work, their contribution to society, or their philosophy cultivated over time. Usually, a legacy is a task that someone will set out to accomplish, perhaps even part of their bucket list. First comes their will and then comes the legacy. However, legacy can have both direct and indirect implications. This notion contradicts the formal approach to legacy. For most a legacy is very intentional, but thinking about it as a contradiction it is also unintentional. The direct approach to legacy is having a clear idea of what to gather, what to deploy, and what to collect in order to pass it on to others. The indirect approach is that everyone leaves some form of legacy. Indeed, this poses a problem to the essence of how we think about it.
This contradiction is seen clearer when we focus on the receiver of one’s legacy versus the giver. Having a direct approach for a legacy means the giver has clear objectives. Having an indirect approach means the person is unaware of what is left behind; the person has not thought about any such objectives to pass on to the next generation. On the other hand the receiver can see the same result, whether the legacy is direct or indirect. This same person receiving a form of legacy from the one who was intentional can reap the benefits of another’s life who was absurdly unintentional. For example, leaving a building behind can be a form of one’s direct legacy; the person was intentional about building it and leaving it behind. This is the individual being direct and having a clear objective. The next generation never realizes the importance of the building; instead, to them it just appears modernistic. Therefore, the receiver misses the intent of the legacy and the legacy has no effect.
Having a direct and indirect approach to legacy that reaps the same or similar results is not right. It is a conundrum. A direct approach to legacy should have a high impact, a major effect on the next generation. How do we harmonize this proposed contradiction? The answer is that we can’t harmonize it, and it is not supposed to be harmonized. The problem is with the direct approach, as it is missing an educational component that will effectively deliver the objectives for the legacy, therefore guaranteeing maximum results. A legacy that only involves objectives can get derailed through time and human incompetence. Yet a legacy with objectives and an educational component will constantly focus on the learners who will benefit from the objectives. So, when thinking about your legacy, please don’t stop at what is left behind, but also think about how others will receive it. How will you maintain the integrity of your knowledge so that each generation thereafter has a 100% understanding of your direct intent?
Knowledge is a great way for you to leave your legacy. Create a course here on Leverage House and allow us to assist with the educational aspect.
*This article was recycled from The Leverage House (www.TheLeverageHouse.com) my site that focuses on eLearning centered around suppressing educational depravity in economically distressed areas.