Elon Musk’s method
How to gain a developmental culture?
Elon Musk is a name that most people in our part of the world have heard of. On Feb.06.18 the SpaceX rocket was launched, and there is now a Tesla in Orbit.
He transcends himself and our time, and is the world’s most successful entrepreneur. We should listen to him when it comes to thinking about creativity and development.
Elon Musk is also the man behind the Tesla car, Paypal payment system, and is big on solar panels. The beginning of what has become Tesla was an annoyance of bad features on mobile phones on the market. He discovered negativities/negations/the “nothingness” about the batteries, and got the idea of making better and less expensive. A “trivial” fundamental ability.
The car and the project “Tesla” is named after Nikola Tesla (1856-1943 AD) the physicist genius who was right in his knowledge of what was possible with electricity, but died alone and poor. He was ahead of his time. Elon Musk has a method, a physicist’s method. His perspective is to understand his objectives and find their potential/their “nothingness”= what it is not, and from there improvement. This is how we all think in the dailybasis, but he is one or two levels above. Elon Musk has had investors who have believed in his “wild” ideas. He is also ahead of his time when he shows what opportunities and private engagement is capable of, along with others. Nobody can do it all alone.
Well-being and overruns
Elon Musk loosens himself from habitual issues and thinking. He uses knowledge/meta- knowledge from ancient times for[i] fertile perspectives on “opening up”, for relationships and insights, and being aware of good leadership.  Keywords are well-being, freedom, dedication, requirements, knowledge, involvement and goals. It is the individual’s commit- ment that can establish the parts for a “sustainable future”. Developer in SpaceX Robert Zuprin, says that the dumbest idea there is, is limitations and that the most important knowledge is understanding creativity.
The takeaway: With first-principles thinking, you attack problems from a different angle, potentially making much better decisions.
De first-principles approach has deep roots. About 2300 years ago, Aristotle said that a first principle is the “first basis from which a thing is known” and that pursuing first principles is the key to doing any sort of systemic inquiry – whether in philosophy, as he did or in business, as Musk does. [3[ii]]
Discovery of “missing”.
It is “polite” that he refers to Greek antiquity. He is an educated physicist, knows Aristotle and dialectics (of conversation, art ) and is educated in dividing the objects of research into their smallest constituents . He uses this approach methodically to other areas, and is “free” in his thinking. It is this ability to find shortcomings that make him so creative and knowledge-able. All development must be through the stage of the discovery of a deficiency, and it always happens in only one head first.
Aristotle’s teacher was Platon. Here is a quote from Platon that shows antiquity tools for communication and investigation method.
“Dialectics is the only form of investigation that drives the prerequisite aside and tries to get a safe starting point. (…) Do`nt you think that dialectics are the crown of all science, and that you want to make injustice in setting a different science higher than that? It forms the keystone in the line of science”. 
Dialectics are to “see” development as a result of deficiencies and opposites. Training is needed to “reveal” that one assumes is true and “uninteresting” is just a habit. “What, why and how” can bring one out of this state. How difficult it is, depicts Platon’s cave parable where you see shadows on the cave in believing reality. You can`t know what you do`nt know if you`re not investigating what causes these shadows. But it’s hard if you’ve been in this cave all the time and just looked at the cave wall, with the fire behind it.
The origin of the dialectic concept is to “examine together”; the oral practice, the need for others to find out about things/cooperation. It was a result of the struggle for knowledge and survival. (End of Article: Two «Dialectical Structures»)
Democracy was a development project:
Ancient knowledge of development was established after hundreds of years of cultural development “in that direction”. Democracy and Aristotle is a witness’s culmination for this development. However, neither democracy nor Aristotle pulled rabbits out of the hat, without being put to the forefront: Practice and historical-cultural experience. Democracy was established for improvement, by human and society. Aristotle was stimulated in conversation with Plato, who had Socrates as his teacher. In the best of democracy, Athens was characterized by a dialectic culture.
The democracy building occurred when the Athenians discovered “enough was enough”. For a hundred years, the Attic (Athenian) people had been exploited and enslaved in debth by a bad aristocracy who drove the economy into the ditch. 90% of the population was in debts and in hunger.
You should not think like before, but think again, asking questions. The people should participate, and a meeting place for discussion and to create new ideas, in the square / agora, was established. They established the first principle of development, good proper speech, an “aristocratic” heritage (Solon imposed this norm).
The imported philosophy and developed their own, questioned traditional values,transcending them, using art and expression to stimulate conversation and reflection. There was a belief that the citizen could.
Why / how does this work? When you talk, you share ideas. Man “affects” the mind of others to relate to one’s own. Before you hear anything, there is a possible shortcoming in your own head. When you hear something, the probability is great for associating with something you know before. A brand new idea may appear. (“Kairos ; god for the golden moments). The more involved in this game, the faster the knowledge can grow. They understood the psychological significance of the ability to speak, if desired. It increased involvement in society. It was a norm / duty to say what could mean improvement, and have knowledge of what we were talking about. This is where “speech at risk”/parrhesia is relevant.
If leaders did not listen to people, they were considered bad leaders, not to be interested in new knowledge, but to be self-sufficient. This also applied to ordinary people. You should not scold out, talk badly, bully and harass. That was precisely why freedom of speech was developed. For managers, the punishment could be particularly hard.
With the use of modern philosophy and psychology, it can be emphasized that this works: Man is from birth in a questioning attitude to everything. It is the way of consciousness to be in questioning meaning even before meaning (Martin Heidegger). We focus on things in the world, faces, words, concepts. We must understand to survive. We are in the development of listening to, contributing to, feeling the good feeling of being accepted. The path to this goes through the language, and linguistic involvement provides brain development. It is the communication that is developing; ideas, meaning as part of a community, and the sense of power. But with power you are tempted not to listen to people. With the experience of impotence you keep away, stumble, or you resist being a fierce, anti-authoritarian, smart survivor; Elon Musk (tough upbringing/bad father).
For our society: If everybody in society had knowledge that the human being is in constant development (consciousness is inquiring, but can decide not to), and had knowledge of knowledge development, society would have enormous potential for realization of our human resources. There would also be less bullying and harassment, revealed as primitive sides of man. Primitive culture: “Knowledge is power” (Francis Bacon) is a well-used quote. But if you turn it on, then “power is often knowledge”, in negative terms. Power is in possession of what is right and wrong. What we regard as right and perspectives of reality is belief-systems it can be difficult to question. It is “our culture”; political ideologies, religions, divisions and scientific truths. It’s the same with; “Batteries cost it and that.” “That and it’s not possible”. “You should not believe you are anything”. Such “truths” teach you early in life, and they can deprive the individuals sound development/belief that something is possible and that something can be gained.
We must expand the concept of democracy, as we understand it today, both in breadth and depth. We must understand that freedom is where we go in the same direction as a democratic project. We must understand that knowledge of dialectics in society with simplicity may imply an educational and developmental revolution. We must know our own consciousness and learning process as also dialectically by nature. That’s what we need for the future, a tool of reason for striving for what we do not even know.
A questioning and discussing culture is a culture of the best of talent. In ancient times, it was not shown what democracy would mean for posterity.
Elon Musk does not know what his thinking/practice will give for the future. I did not know what knowledge it would give me many years ago asking the question; “What are the best conditions for the human development?” That is why I can write this and pull the line of development back to Homer, Hesiod and the 9 goddessess of knowledge in the Valley of the Mines (about 6 miles north west of Athens), if necessary.
 Platon «The Republic”» 533d.