The best swimmer or the right pool?

Below is a blog posted by a well known author and professional coach who has helped many people become more successful through getting more in touch with who they are. He and I are alike in many ways. He sees himself as a disruptor as I do. Based on his other blogs his context is humanism. He has written a book called MOSAIC to help you see what you don;t see and do what seems impossible.



Read this and form your thoughts about it. How does it make you feel? Is it good advice? etc. I have posted my response below.


WHO WERE YOU BEFORE YOU TOLD YOURSELF WHO YOU ARE?

what would life be like if you were to drop all the stories you have told yourself and if you were only to remember one thing. . . .who you are.

there would be no more searching, no more trying, no more effort, no more struggle, no more search for meaning. what if everything was already there. in conversation with my friend, Luke Iorio he shared with me his idea for writing a book on this beautiful concept.

in the MOSIAC, i only wish that you would be able to meet the TrashMan, for he is the one who removes everything that no longer belongs. who would you be if everything that no longer belonged were gone?

this is the MOSAIC. connect to what is, let go of everything that is not.


My response ....
Now here is a disruptive thought - I was discussing a similar idea as this blog with a friend today. He used the analogy of becoming a great swimmer. He mentioned that I would need others to help me know the correct stroke and still others to help me get rid of bad habits and destructive thoughts like fear. I was tracking well with the idea of becoming all I was meant to be as a swimmer and then he said, what if you are in the wrong pool? What if there exists a different but even better pool where greatness as a swimmer depended on a whole different set of qualities than what I thought was right in this pool? What if ....

Although much of his personality and logic is very similar to mine, his view of the right pool is different than mine because we have different core assumptions. This is the purpose of b4Worldview. To get people in the right pool rather than helping them swim better in the wrong pool.

This is what changing the narrative means!!     (isn't pondering wonderful :-)

Maybe my English teacher had it right

I think all of us have been frustrated at some point in time by trying to understand what someone else has written, especially interpreting a poem in school. Let’s look in on Susie’s experience with this at college as she shares her frustration over the phone with her mom.

- Phone rings    -




Mom: Hello
Susie: Hi Mom
Mom: Oh hi Susie, I’m so glad you called. Everything OK?
Susie: Yeah, everything’s good. Well, almost everything.

Mom: What’s wrong?
Susie: I’m kinda struggling in English literature this semester.
Mom: Really? I thought you liked literature?
Susie: Oh, I do, Mom. It’s just this professor, he makes poetry so frustrating.

Mom: Oh, poetry, I always had trouble understanding what a poem meant. They always seemed so abstract and interpretations so arbitrary.
Susie: Yeah, that’s my problem, too. He gives us these poems and asks us to interpret what we think the poet’s theme is. I feel like I have a good logical explanation and he says, nope, that’s not what the poet is trying to tell us. But, he doesn’t explain why my view isn’t true.

Mom: I remember being frustrated at that too. My professor would emphasize that the truth of the poem is what the poet has chosen to mean by what he or she writes. It really didn’t matter how good of an argument I could give for why it could mean something else.
Susie: Yes, I am not sure why literature is different from my other courses.

Mom: What do you mean?
Susie: Well, in economics we develop rational arguments for what is true. The right answer seems to depend on how well we can make a logical defense for what we believe. The same thing holds for Philosophy. In all of my subjects, but literature experts have developed competing arguments for what is true about something. AND, as long as we have a good explanation for what we believe to be true, we can claim to be right too.

Mom: Yeah, I agree, it seems that when we call something science, truth about an object is determined by inferences we can make about the object by collecting data. But, in other areas of knowledge, truth is determined by what the person who originated the object says is true.
Susie: Having different ways to determine truth is so confusing. With science truth seems relative and depends on the validity of arguments people can make about the object. In science, how much knowledge about an object we can gather is what is important.  But then, with literature, truth seems to be absolute and depends on what the author says is true. In this case, how smart we are or how much data we gather isn’t the issue. Its all about getting to know what the author says that is important. I guess truth is just “different strokes for different folks.” (a little laugh)

Mom:  Yes, Susie, I see why you are a bit frustrated. It seems that the best thing to do is just accept how science and literature differ with regards to truth and kind of “go along to get along”, as they say. Makes life easier that way.
Susie: I guess it is easier, but two ways to find truth is a bit unsettling for a young person like me who wants to be able to find truth so I can live the best life possible.

Mom: Yeah, I can see that. (thoughtful hesitation) This conversation reminds me of something I learned in a course called b4Worldview. One of the major points of this course was the discussion of the two different core assumptions about truth. It was so interesting at the time, but I had let the point about truth kind of slip into the background. Maybe it can help you sort this out.
Susie: That would be nice mom, what did it say about truth?

Mom: Let’s see if I can get this straight. I know it talked a lot about relative and absolute truth, kind of like we did. Then it said something so profound that relates to what we were discussing.
Susie: Yeah, what was that?
Mom: The speaker said that there are two basic beliefs about truth that people hold dear. In fact, these beliefs are called core assumptions, which means they are beliefs a person has that they never question, but use to make sense of everything else.
Susie: Core assumptions? cool idea. What were the two core assumptions about truth?

 Mom: They were like what we were talking about. One core assumption is that truth about an object is determined by what an observer can conclude about the object. This is like science. The other core assumption is that the truth about an object is determined by what the originator of the object says about it. This is like poems or stories, its more about the author.
Susie: That’s interesting. This seems like it suggests that if a person has the first core assumption, then they would see truth as relative, there can be many views of truth. If they have the second core assumption, then truth is absolute and there is only one view of what is true.

Mom: Yes, that seems right. The b4Worldview course didn’t use literature as the example of the second core assumption, but author’s are originators of objects in literature. The course emphasized architects of buildings as the source of truth about the buildings. Although you can observe a building and infer qualities about the building, the truth is best and maybe only known by asking the architect, especially if there are qualities of the building that cannot be observed.
Susie: Objects have qualities we cannot observe?
Mom: Oh, yes, things like the purpose of the building.
Susie: Wow, mom, I never thought of truth that way. Everybody seems to think science is the best way to know what is true, BUT I can see this second core assumption about truth is powerful. The idea that truth is what the originator says is not very common at my university.

Mom: No, I agree, in fact most people hold tight to the first core assumption about truth and because its a core assumption, they never really question that they trust what they and other observers say about an object more than they trust what the originator says.
Susie: I can see that, mom. How do we know which core assumption is best?

Mom: That’s what was interesting about b4Worldview. The speaker emphasized that core assumptions are beliefs we do not prove. BUT, here is what stuck with me. The instructor told us that the original meaning of the word “truth” was “the disclosure of actual qualities of an object.” It was very transforming for me to see that truth is really about disclosure.
Susie: That sounds like core assumption two. For some quality of an object to be disclosed, it is probably not observed.

Mom: Yeah, that’s what was so life changing for me, because I was so used to trusting science for truth and not the author of the story, or architect of the building or the originator of the object.
Susie: So, instead of being frustrated by how my professor pushes me to see truth about a poem by seeing what is revealed to me by the poet, I should thank him for pushing me toward core assumption two about truth?

Mom: Yeah, Susie, this has been a really good chat and an important life lesson .... Seen any good movies lately?

What does it take?

Some years ago I had the following discussion with a friend. The names have been changed to protect the innocent and the discussion has been expanded to illustrate what a student will learn about knowledge, truth and faith in the b4Worldview course.


Me: Joe, how are you and Susie coming along in your relationship?
Joe: Oh, I think we are doing really good.
Me: Well, you know you are not getting any younger and you have been dating for 5 years. Are you thinking about marriage.
Joe: Of course, we both think about it a lot, but are afraid to talk about it too much.

Me: Afraid? How so?
Joe: I think Susie is afraid if she talks too much about it I’ll think she is pushing me. I am afraid because I can’t get really sure if its the right thing to do. If I talk about it too much, it'll put too much pressure on me because she’ll think I am moving in that direction. So, it is kind of the white elephant in the room if you know what I mean.
Me: Yeah, I can understand why each of you are hesitant for different reasons. Can I ask you a question?
Joe: Sure, go ahead.

Me: What information do you need that you do not have that if you had, you could decide?
Joe: (hesitates and is a little perplexed) That’s a good question. I don’t really know that I need to know more.
Me: Do you know you really love her?
Joe: yes

Me: do you know she really loves you?
Joe: as much as a man can know that this.
Me: Guess what your issue is?
Joe: Fear? (laughingly)
Me: Well, you can look at it that way, but there is a better way to understand what is going on.
Joe: Really? What? Tell me please.

Me: The first question I asked you was about what do you not know. I was talking about head knowledge, which is the typical idea of knowledge. The ancient Greeks actually had a word for head knowledge. Did you KNOW that?
Joe: Why do I feel you are about to tell me? (smiling)
Me: yeah, you KNOW me too well. (smiling back) The word for head knowledge is “eido”. It basically means knowledge we have that we get through our physical senses. You recognize you don’t need any more facts, so to speak. That’s normally what we mean when we say we need to know more or not. Its about acquiring facts. But there is another form of knowledge, that is really important but we don’t understand as well.
Joe: yeah, what’s that called?

Me: This other form of knowledge the ancient Greeks called “gnosis.” We sometimes call it heart knowledge. Its more mysterious because it doesn’t come to us through our physical senses.
Joe: Yeah, I’ve heard of heart knowledge, but I have never thought about it much and certainly never heard anyone explain it to me. How do we get heart knowledge or this thing called “gnosis”?
Me: Good question. It is not understood well. You are right about that. Some people call it intuition, some call it conscience. Some people even believe that gnosis is knowledge that is revealed to us somehow. This means we receive knowledge from something outside our self rather than gain it through our own efforts.
Joe: I can see that. Everyone knows they know things that they didn’t get through normal means.

Me: Actually, what we know we know, but we got through gnosis knowledge, is called faith.
Joe: Faith? I thought that was just a term Christians use. You mean everyone has faith?
Me: That’s right, Joe. Faith is simply evidence about something we gain through gnosis knowledge. Can you describe your faith in Susie’s love for you?
Joe: Well, good question. I certainly observe her actions towards me. She encourages me and does things for me. I know what she looks like, how she smells. I see her personality and like it. I guess all of that is head knowledge. You call that “eido”, right?

Me: Yes, Joe, you got that down pat. BUT, what do you know in your heart?
Joe: My heart tells me I don’t want to be without her. My heart tells me she would love me no matter what I did. I have thought and probably said sometime that I have faith in Susie. I guess I have acknowledged my faith in Susie and trust all of this evidence I have about our love for each other, but I never have thought of it as faith.

Me: That’s what I mean. It is amazing how many ways we trust faith in knowledge we cannot observe that influences how we think, feel and act. Yet, most people believe they are very logical – that they trust science or only what they can prove by what they observe.
Joe: That is so right. I was only thinking about my eido knowledge when I was thinking about marrying Susie. When I only included head knowledge, I was apathetic – I just wouldn’t act because its hard to trust just head knowledge.

Me: That’s right Joe. That’s a good principle to remember – eido knowledge without gnosis knowledge leaves us impotent to act. The opposite can be a problem too.
Joe: Oh yeah, what’s that?
Me: If I only have gnosis but I do not have eido that supports my gnosis, I may just be acting on emotion and that can be risky.
Joe: That’s kind of a “love at first sight” thinking that rushes people to the altar, only to have their marriage fall apart later.

Me: That’s right Joe. We need to back up our heart knowledge with head knowledge. Having both fit each other really gives us something we can trust enough to act on.
Joe: I see my problem. When I put my gnosis knowledge up with my edio knowledge, I can trust my action to marry Susie.

Note: Before the week was out, Joe asked Susie to marry him and she said yes. Susie forever thanks me for my discussion with Joe :-)

Dad and daughter at dinner

Susie is home from college at Fall break. Mom and dad like it when the family can all have dinner together. After all, eating together is a great time for fellowship and discussing life’s issues. Let’s drop in at dinner time and listen to Susie and her dad as they catch up on what’s been happening since they were last together.



Dad: Well, Susie, how is everything going at college?
Susie: Good.
Dad: Good.
(a little period of awkward silence follows as usual)

Dad: You learning anything interesting?
Susie: Classes are good. I like my professors.
Dad: Good, getting along with all your friends?
Susie: Yeah, that’s good.  (little silence) I wish you’d quit embarrassing me with your facebook posts though.

Dad: Oh, I’m sorry. (a little silence) What did I say that was so bad?
Susie: You get on this immigration kick of yours. My friends think you are so intolerant.
Dad: My immigration kick? (hesitation) All I say is that people who come into our country should obey the immigration laws.
Susie: You always said that the Golden Rule is a major principle we should live by. Doesn’t that mean people who have a hard time in their country deserve a better life and we should share what we have so they can be happy? Isn’t the Golden rule all about being fair. After all, wouldn’t we want others to help us and share with us if we were in need?

Dad: Yeah, I suppose I have taught you about the value of treating others as you would want them to treat you. But, it just doesn’t seem fair to those immigrants who follow the law that many others can get the same benefits and not follow the law. What’s wrong with that?
Susie: Yeah, I can understand your point but my sociology professor really emphasizes how people who have a lot should share what they have with people who don't. Being a tolerant society is really what matters. Everyone deserves a good life and to have what they need to be happy regardless of their background, what they look like and where they are from.

Dad: I agree this fairness thing is complicated. But I always thought that fair is about “getting what we deserve”. Doesn't this mean we must earn or work for what we get, not that we just deserve it because we exist. If someone wants more, shouldn't they work for it and follow the rules. Isn’t your professor’s idea of tolerance using the wrong idea of the word “deserve”?
Susie: Well, he’s the professor. He’s smart. Sharing what we have with those in need feels right to me. (hesitation) If the Golden Rule is right and being tolerant feels right, then that must be what the Golden Rule means. I don’t see a problem with that logic. Oh, btw, you also complain all the time about taxes and how you pay too much. You make a lot of money and if you really believed in the Golden Rule, you’d be happy to pay your fair share.

Dad pauses for a bit, knowing this doesn’t sound right to him but he doesn't want to argue with his daughter. He needs to find a way to make this discussion personal to Susie. Its very hard to compete with the credibility Susie gives to her professors. After a few moments he says this:

Dad: Speaking of your professors, how are you doing in school?
Susie: Oh, I’m doing great. I am on track to maintain my 4.0 GPA. But its not easy.
Dad: No, I’m sure its not. College is tough. Grades don’t come easy, even when you are smart.
Susie: yeah, I study all the time, never have time to go out and party like many of my friends.  I don’t even have time for a boyfriend and don't really have many college friends because I spend all my time studying. I am taking more difficult courses, too.

Dad: yeah, I am so proud of you. How is your friend Mary doing?
Susie: Oh, Mary is hardly getting by. She is barely pulling a 2.0 GPA, and she takes easy classes and never studies.

Dad: That’s interesting.
Susie: and oh yeah, Mary is very popular on campus. College for her is a blast. She goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over.
Dad: So Mary does college very different than you and gets very different results, right?
Susie: Yeah, she sure does. She doesn’t follow the rules and what we were told as freshman about how to succeed in college and she is suffering the consequences. I am not sure if she will be able to stay in school and graduate.

Dad: (after letting what Susie said soak in a minute, he says): Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to Mary? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and you both can graduate.
Susie: (a little bothered by that suggestion says) That wouldn't be fair!  I worked really hard for my grades. I do without some things I would want to do, and Mary has done little or nothing, to succeed. She played while I worked really hard!

Dad: Susie, don’t be so intolerant of Mary. Remember, her dad died when she was young. Her family has not had as many privileges you have had. She has a much tougher life. Doesn’t she deserve to graduate just like you? What would your sociology professor tell you to do? (smiling)

Susie looks perplexed
Dad: anyone for dessert?

How we view what’s fair, what people deserve, guiding principles like the Golden Rule ultimately determines our worldview on many issues in life. However, our worldviews flow from core assumptions deep within us that we never even question or discuss. People of all ages, but especially those in the formative early adult years, are subject to many voices, competing for the ideas that shape how they think, feel, and act. Isn’t it time to explore those core assumptions in a thoughtful and rigorous way so that what comes b4Worldview can lead to a more abundant and virtuous life? 

Mom, college is great!

Susie came home this summer after her first year in college. Living on her own, so to speak, left her with so much to share. Susie and her mom have a good relationship so she couldn’t wait to catch mom up on how much she had learned and grown in her first year away from home.



Let’s drop in on their conversation and see what it’s like to see this moment through the eyes of a rising college sophomore.

Susie: Mom, I have so much to tell you. College is so cool.
Mom: Great Susie, I can’t wait to hear. Did you learn a lot?
Susie: Yes, mom. I feel like I learned more in this one year than all of high school.
Mom: That’s great, Susie. That’s why we pay all those big bucks (smile and little giggle). Your dad and I are so excited about what you’ll learn and how that will help you with a career. You know it takes a lot of money to make it in this world these days. So a good career is very important.

Susie: Yes, Mom, I know. My professors are so smart. They are helping me so much. I feel good about where I am heading.
Mom: Well, that’s a good sound to a mother’s ears. Tell me the most helpful thing your professors taught you.
Susie: I have this one professor. He is so cool – and smart. He knows everything about life.
Mom: Really? What does he teach?

Susie: He is my Philosophy professor.
Mom: Philosophy? I thought you were focused on Pre Med. Shouldn’t a science be your favorite course?
 Susie: Yeah, I do want to be a doctor, but more importantly, I really want to find myself. My Professor of Philosophy convinced me that finding who I really am is the most important thing I will ever do.
Mom: Really? That’s interesting. Are you lost? (smile and giggle)
Susie: No, mom, I’m not lost.

Mom: Then why do you need to find yourself?
Susie: Oh mom, that is just an expression that young people use to focus on exploring their soul, to find out who we are and what makes us tick. I really need to know my purpose, why I was made like I am – maybe I am not supposed to be a doctor?

Mom: Yikes, that’s scary - I don’t think finding yourself will pay your bills when you graduate.
Susie: I know mom, but my Philosophy professor feels I need to open up. Consider my possibilities. See many points of view. He says it is not good to see things one way. He says I need to be inclusive.
Mom: “Inclusive” What does that mean?
Susie: Oh mom, you and dad are so old fashion. You are stuck in tradition and religion. You raised me well but I can’t just accept what you believe just because you believe it. I need to find out for myself. That’s kinda what finding myself means. It seems that’s what college is really about. My professor doesn’t believe there is only one truth about life. And he is not the only one. It seems most all of my professors and many of my friends feel this way, too.

Mom: Oh, so what dad and I believe is not good enough anymore?
Susie: It’s not that. I am sure you sincerely believe what you believe. But I don’t know why I should believe it. In fact, I don’t know why I believe what I believe. Everyone is encouraging me to think for myself, to try different ideas about what is true. After all, isn’t truth just what we think about something. If any one person had a corner on truth, then they would be intolerant of others and that’s the worst thing anyone can be – intolerant. Everybody knows that.

Mom: I don’t know Susie. I agree that sometimes I am not sure why I believe what I do. It just seems right based on how your dad and I were raised. I just think it’s better if you stay with your beliefs and focus on being a doctor.
Susie: Mom, that may have been good enough for you and dad, but it isn’t good enough for me. I need to find myself, be true to myself or I will just live an unhappy life. Mom, if you were truthful, you are not exactly happy now yourself, are you?

Mom: Can you tell? Life is hard. All the dreams I had have kind of fallen to the wayside. I try to put on a good front for you and your brothers, but most of the time I am just going through the motion – trying to get from one day to the next. BUT, I want more for you. I thought if you got a good education and had a great career like being a doctor, you would be happy when you grow up.
Susie: Well, mom, me and my friends look at your generation and think there must be more to life. Our professors tell us there is no reality beyond our inner self. Knowing ourself is way more important than knowing how to do a job and is way more important than thinking religion is the answer.

Mom: Well, I can’t help you there. I once learned a very important lesson

“Without the context of a bigger stage, being true to ‘self’ is a flattering allegiance to bias and voices of deception.”

Susie: That’s interesting. What do you mean by “bigger stage”? and what is bias and deception?
Mom: I don’t know for sure, but I studied the human condition once and what struck me was that we are part of a bigger story. It’s really the story in which we belong that matters more than being an independent self.
Susie: You believe we are a character in a story? Are we just a puppet that someone is pulling the strings?
Mom: No, that’s not what that means. It means that there is an author of life, who created each of us for a purpose, kinda like a role in a story. It’s a good story, but has episodes of tragedy. I learned that we must see ourselves within this story more than finding our self as an independent actor without a story.

Susie: I like that idea. I find it frustrating to just focus on myself. I’d like to know the story I am in, that sounds exciting.
Mom: I also learned that we have a human nature that can affect how we see and understand things. These are like flaws – so even if we were searching for our self, we could never see our self properly. There are self centered biases that force us to focus on the wrong issues.
Susie: Like what?
Mom: I heard that our nature forces us to get what we need by trying to earn it by what we do.
Susie: Yeah, duh, what’s wrong with that? Sounds pretty normal to me.

Mom: That’s my point, this is our nature. The problem is that this yearning to exchange our actions for what we can get in return is what creates anxiety, despair, frustration and many other emotions. And even when we have moments where things work well and we are happy, we fear that we will soon lose what we have. It seems by definition that we can never gain hope, joy and freedom if exchange is the way we operate.
Susie: Yeah, I can see that already in my short life. I think that’s why we have so many teen suicides.
Mom: yeah, and divorces and cheating and depression. Even worse, we feel in bondage to those who do something for us because we feel obligated to do something in return. This can make us feel guilty.

Susie: Yeah, I don’t like feeling obligated. So I try to give more than receive so I can stay free of obligation. Lots of people say giving is a good thing, but I think most people give to get something in return. I feel more in control when I am giving versus when I receive.
Mom: Think about it, why doesn’t your Philosophy professor and your friends ever talk about these things? Maybe understanding the flaws of human nature and the absence of our place in the big story would be better than “finding our self”.

Susie: Mom, you are so smart. College just doesn’t seem to think that way. I don’t feel prepared to defend against the things my professors and friends throw at me. I never really felt good about what they were saying, but I didn’t know how to defend what I believe, even when I knew deep down their arguments were shallow and futile.
Mom; We tried to raise you well, to know what is right and what is wrong, but we never really knew what we believed deep enough to give you the tools. I hope some time, somewhere there will be an opportunity for you to discover core truths about life.
Susie: Me too, mom. It doesn’t feel good to know that I should think one way but I am tugged another. There must be something that can help?

Mom: yeah, Susie, as a mom I think I would pay anything for a book or a course or something that would transform how you think so deeply that hurricanes could not shake your beliefs and that these beliefs would lead you to joy, purpose, freedom, hope, love and a sense of where you belong in this great big story called life.

**********

There's a lot more to this story and there are millions just like it. Young people easily swayed by the culture and their friends. Parents who want the best for their kids, raised them as best as they could, but feel defenseless in the world's attacks on their kids.

b4Worldview is a transformational learning experience designed for parents and millennial children to develop and own core beliefs that serve them well through the onslaught of principles and ideas that are futile in living the abundant and virtuous life.    

Obama's exit interview

President Obama will soon be leaving the job he has held for almost 8 years. Often when someone leaves their job, it is helpful for the employer to do an “exit interview.” Since I am a citizen of the USA, I am technically one of his many bosses. If you were to have an opportunity to interview him on the way out, what would you ask?




If you were a supporter you would be kind, respectful and favorable in your questions. If you were not a supporter, you should be respectful and kind, but you may ask tougher questions, like explain sanctuary cities, IRS abuse, bigger government, and so forth.

I have a totally different idea than either of these. I do not wish to agree or debate his public policy. I have a much bigger and serious line of questioning for Obama.

Here is a shot at what that interview might look like:

Me: “Mr. Obama, you are shortly going to be an ex-President, so as a citizen of the USA, I would like to ask you a few questions. Is that OK?”
Obama: “Of course, I will answer whatever is on your mind.”
Me: “OK, let’s get started. You have made social justice a centerpiece of your presidency. You have said “enacting social justice is the primary role of the Supreme Court.” I don’t know for sure, but I think you use some form of this phrase in every speech, maybe even every conversation that is not conducted on the golf course. Can I ask you about this topic?”
Obama: “Oh yes, it is my favorite thing to talk about.”
Me: “Is there anything you think is more important than justice?”
Obama: “maybe my family.”
Me: “of course, I mean social value.”
Obama: “I can’t think of anything more important.”

Me: “That’s what I thought. So, what does ‘justice’ mean?”
Obama: “well, I think it means being fair.”
Me: “what does ‘being fair’ mean?”
Obama: “oh, you know, doing the right thing for everybody concerned.”
Me: “How do we know what is right for everybody?”
Obama: “oh, you know, being fair. Ugh, I can’t use the word to define a word can I?”
Me: “not exactly. But there’s a bigger issue than a circular argument for the meaning of justice.”

Obama: “Really, how can there ever be anything wrong with justice?”
Me: “Well, let’s assume it means fair.”
Obama: “OK, I am with you so far.”
Me: “The problem with ‘fair’ is that there are at least three ways to be fair.”
Obama: “Really? I have never heard that. What are the three?”
Me: “There is equity, or getting what you deserve. There is need, giving people according to their deficit. Then there is equality, giving everyone the same.

Obama: “I like all of them, when I say justice I mean all of those ways to be fair.”
Me: “OK, but they contradict each other. Only one can apply in a situation.”
Obama: “what do you mean?”
Me: “If you want to give according to people’s need, then everyone would not get the same since everyone doesn’t have the same need.”
Obama: “oh!”
Me: “If you give people what they deserve, then everyone would not necessarily get what they need and everyone would certainly not get the same. Why do you live in the White House and many others live in a ghetto? If justice meant equality, you would not have different housing than others.”
Obama: “oh, I see the issue.”

Me: “guess what!”
Obama: “what?”
Me: “Justice means only one of the 3 types of fairness.”
Obama: “Really, which one?”
Me: “Getting what you deserve.”
Obama: “Oh, but I like them all.”

Me: “of course you do, all three are attractive to everybody. But you cannot be fair. Its impossible, because when you apply one type you violate the other 2.”
Obama: “wow, that is crazy. I think we need to be fair and you say its impossible.”
Me: “yeah, and when you support sanctuary cities in the name of justice, you are wrong.”
Obama: “I don’t understand. It feels right. I am being nice to people who are in need. How can it be wrong?”
Me: “It may feel right, but justice means getting what you deserve, which is application of law. It’s actually injustice when you apply the law in ways it is not intended. You are not giving some people, those who came here illegally, what they deserve. So you are not being just.”
Obama: “But it seems the Christian thing to do. So maybe social justice is doing for people what Jesus would do. I value doing good things for people, isn’t that what Jesus would do?” 

Me: “Oh, so your focus on social justice comes from your religious faith.”
Obama: “yes, that’s it. Social justice is about doing good like Jesus taught us.”
Me: “Why are you a Christian?”
Obama: “oh my, I probably would never had been elected if I was not. (laughingly)”
Me: “That’s probably true, but its not a reason to be a Christian. You just think its better than all the other religions?”
Obama: “Well, I can’t say it’s better because that would be discriminating. I value tolerance, too.”
Me: “So you just kind of picked Christianity to be your religion, but in the end it doesn’t really matter? You could be just as happy if you were Muslim or Hindu. After all, they value social justice and doing good too.”
Obama: “I guess so. We’re all trying to get to the same place, aren’t we?”

Me: “It’s an interesting question. Do we value social justice first and then pick a religion that agrees, or do we accept a faith we trust is true and then see what it says to us about justice?”
Obama: “Wouldn’t I get to the same place of seeing justice as the most important thing.”
Me: “next to tolerance?”
Obama: Oh, yeah, if I give someone what they deserve, which is justice, I cannot accept whatever they do without punishment. Wow, now I am really confused.”

Me: “Don’t be too hard on yourself, what if I told you that many Republicans, evangelical Christians, right wing nuts, and conservative pastors see social justice just like you. They think it is the major theme of Christianity the same way you got there. But they are wrong too.”


Obama: “Really? We agree on the priority of justice as a Christian and we are on totally different ends of the policy debate and we are both wrong?”
Me: “That’s right.”

Obama: “I am pretty confused now. I don’t think I want to discuss this anymore. It is upsetting me.”
Me: “Ok, one last thought. If you think Christians are supposed to do what Jesus taught and in fact what he did, guess what?”
Obama: “What?”
Me: “he suffered and died on the cross so we don’t have to be concerned about justice.”
Obama: “What? He is known across the world as a 'do-gooder.' Doing the right thing for people. He’s the King of fair.”
Me: “That’s the way many think. But, when we are obsessed with justice we are in fact denying Jesus, not following him.”
Obama: “Now you really are crazy. I think this interview is over.”

Me: “It can be if you wish. But if you are serious about being a Christian, then you first must see it is very different from all other religious faiths. The good news, btw, that is where we get the term “The Gospel”, is that while God is just, that’s not what He wants from us.”
Obama: “Wait, I don’t like that, I like justice. I have based all of my policies and in fact all of my life on being fair, I mean valuing social justice. Doing good is why everyone likes me.”
Me: “Then you are just acting according to your human nature, not your faith in Christ. Being fair is not what makes you good.”
Obama: “My human nature? Isn't that a good thing?”
Me: “No, that's a myth. It is our flesh or human nature that influences us to seek justice. We want things to be fair because then we can earn favor on our own by being good. But a Christian has been transformed by the Cross. It is then Grace, the opposite of justice that drives our passions. It is how we make unmerited favor operative in our lives that is the outcome of our faith in Christ. Only then are we really different from the world, who are all about justice.How can the redeemed soul and the unredeemed soul have the same priority?”
Obama: “I don’t know if I buy that. I need to ponder that a while.”

Me: "If that isn't enough, here is one concluding thought. Justice is the strict, objective  application of rewards and punishment according to the law. You actually don't seem to be as sold on justice as you think you are. It seems you have confused justice with tolerance (meaning relative truth). BTW, Jesus did not invade the world and indeed our lives to make us better at either."
Obama: “Ugh"

Interview ended!!

I suspect we all need to ponder that. We probably all need to ponder the revolutionary power of transforming Grace. This is the mission of b4Worldview. Before you can develop the Christian worldview on any topic, you must have Kingdom core assumptions that are anchored in Grace, not reward and punishment systems of justice. You must see knowledge,truth, and faith different from what is normal to your human nature. Otherwise, you lose the battle before you start……

What smart people do not know

"Your gut instincts infiltrate your innermost thoughts even when you believe you are being utterly rational. They shape how you frame problems and the options you consider. They inspire you to consult some people but not others, to collect data in some areas but not others, and to take some decisions seriously but not others. Yet while you can’t evade these emotions, you can understand and control them."  McKinsey Classics

McKinsey is probably the most respected consulting company worldwide. They only hire top guns from prestigious universities. The first 2 statements are right on, but then their point becomes error. The last sentence makes a leap of deceit and is dead wrong. Intuition is not emotion. Intuition is a material form of an abstract reality called faith and faith does overwhelm how we think and feel, it is a major influence to knowledge.

Faith is conclusive evidence we cannot observe, therefore we cannot prove. We accept unseen evidence as true because there is a mechanism in the human condition that relies on unobserved knowledge. This mechanism is not emotion. It is not how we feel. It is a thought or idea that flows from our soul to our mind. Sometimes we call it conscience, or revelation, or inner voice or in this case, "gut instinct."

It is true we cannot trust our emotions, they can deceive us. But we also cannot fully trust science. There are enormous biases and limits built in to the rational process of scientific inference. There's a new book out that calls "big data" the "the weapon of MATH destruction". The author claims humans produce flawed and biased algorithms and then use them to tease their idea of truth out of data for their own purposes.

Many smart people want to discount and dismiss faith, so they say it is just an emotion that needs to be controlled. The fact is no one, even smart scientists, operates without a reliance on faith. This is not and never will be the issue. Yet, many want us to think faith is weak and not helpful in decision-making.

While controlling our emotions is good advice, so is controlling our biases. But good decision-making is never about controlling the influence of faith. Ultimately, good decision-making is not about marginalizing faith, but ensuring the target of our faith aligns with "true north". Often we do not have a compass with us, but if we instinctively know where north is, the direction we go will be right. If not, it won't. Its the validity of the evidence in knowledge we cannot observe, but we trust, that will determine the effects of our decisions, nothing more and nothing less. "What does your heart tell you" is not about emotion, but about faith.

But, smart people who win by being smarter really don't want you to know this. So they misdirect you to ponder your emotions and discount your faith. Don't let them trick you .....

Becoming more strategic

"Being strategic" is a phrase that appeals to business executives. I have not met any executive who doesn't say, or at least think, "Of course I want to be strategic, maybe even more than I am now."

But while strategy can "look interesting from across the room," being strategic may seem abstract and difficult to put your finger on. Being strategic is all about building the future. In my book, "Winning in a Hostile Environment," I identify 7 reasons companies lose. These reasons form a nice complex of questions that any executive team can ask themselves that will lead them to being more strategic.

The seven questions are

1.  who is my customer, who is my consumer and how are they different?
2.  where are we cutting costs on strategic initiatives as if they are utilitarian?
3.  what do I measure and how do I use metrics?
4.  how do I make pricing decisions?
5.  what about our culture constrains creativity?
6.  what about our culture restricts strategic change?
7.  how do I manage risks?

While it is easy for executive teams to spend their attention on short term practical issues, these solutions may or may not be contributing to long term success, Winning on the Double Bottom Line (DBL) should be a serious concern of any executive team committed to their mission.

Finding time to ponder these questions should be the focus of "strategic planning", not a "boiler plate", "word smithing", annual process that makes everyone feel strategic ,,,,

"no Pop, magic's not real"

I have a grandson, Lewis, who has become a proficient card magician.

The first year he performed for the family was at Christmas a few years ago. Our youngest granddaughter Sydney was about 8 at the time. After Lewis did a few tricks and amazed the "hostile" crowd, I asked, "Sydney, do you believe in magic?" She replied without hesitation, "No Pop, magic is not real, he is tricking us somehow, I just don't know how." Simple words from a child's mind. At an early age, Sydney recognized she is being deceived. Many people live their whole life and do not recognize that they have flaws that the world can take advantage of to deceive them. While this occurs even when the deception is announced like with a magician, imagine how effective deception is when it occurs in the normal course of life unannounced

There was a recent blog written by a design ethicist at Google entitled "How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds — from a Magician and Google’s Design Ethicist". The author had also been a magician, so he used the concepts of how a magician deceives the audience to outline how people are easily taken into a false reality by social media. He claims "magicians start by looking for blind spots, edges, vulnerabilities and limits of people’s perception, so they can influence what people do without them even realizing it. Once you know how to push people’s buttons, you can play them like a piano." The author focused on some key principles that magicians and social media use to manipulate people or take advantage of the human flaws:
1. If you control the menu, you control the choices
2. Create a slot machine with intermittent variety of rewards
3. Raise the fear of missing something important
4. Leverage the need for social approval
5. Provide social reciprocity
6. Keep feeding their appetite - the Hedonic Treadmill  
7. Make your need their easiest choice
8. Misrepresent their cost

Ironically, these same vulnerabilities form the basis of how the world's system (philosophy, psychology, science, media, religion, education, culture, etc.) exploit people away from truth and reality. Built-into the human nature are flaws that can easily be exploited.

Even when a person becomes a Christian and receives a new identity, a Spiritual presence that can transform these flaws, he/she is still subject to the deception of this world unless their mind (core assumptions) are transformed to align with their new identity.

I don't know why being saved does not automatically change the mind. I don't know why the Christian often is more controlled by the carnal mind than the Kingdom mind. I don't know why so many Christians respond no differently than non Christians. I don't know why so many Christians are legalistic. I don;t know why so many Christians are emotionally fragile. However, I do know that Jesus and the Apostles repeatedly tell us to REPENT (change your mind completely) and believe. To walk in the Spirit not in the flesh. To be transformed by the renewing of the mind. Admonished to not rely on the elemental and futile principles of this world now that you know Christ.

b4Worldview is a transformational learning experience to be completed this Fall that is designed to help Christians operate from the mind of Christ, and in doing so, become immune to the magicians and elitist who use the carnal flaws to rob us of the joy set before us.

This is where I have spent my time pondering lately so that others can do so soon ....  

The classical example

For sometime now I have been working in the field of transformational learning called b4Worldview. The idea is that in the past 15 years or so the Christian Worldview "industry" has either the wrong mission or the wrong strategy for their mission. If their mission is to merely inform Christians of better ways to understand and debate cultural issues, then they are providing benefit to some who have that interest, but they are missing the mission of impacting many others and thus transforming the culture toward Biblical principles. If their mission is to transform, then the strategy is flawed. Here is a classical example:

 This morning I was reading the daily Break Point post from The Colson Center on Christian Worldview. The title was ""Born this way' is shaky science: The truth comes out." The article was basically refuting scientific evidence that transgender identity is a birth condition. The problem is not in their debate over scientific evidence, the error is that they are assuming science is the authority for truth. In other words, they are fighting science with science. They wish to "convince" people of a Kingdom truth using a carnal core assumption. This in itself is error. This can and will never work.

There are basically two core assumptions about the authority of truth. The carnal assumption is that knowledge observed about an object can determine what is true about the object. That is the basis for science. The kingdom core assumption is that the originator of an object is the authority on truth about the object. If our mission is to impact our world with Godly principles, we can never do it using worldly core assumptions. I am not dismissing science as worthless in all aspects of life. I am just saying we must become effective at presenting and arguing for Kingdom assumptions.

The issue with core assumptions is that they are the patterns of thought we trust, but never question, and have no interest in proving.

  Science cannot prove that science is the authority for truth. 

In fact, scientific inquiry can show evidence why science cannot be the authority for truth. So, the debate over the right core assumption about the source of truth is not a scientific debate. When we attempt to convey Kingdom truths using carnal core assumptions, we lose the very war we are fighting.

Now, before you begin to assume that I am off in la-la land and "poo-pooing" science, let me remind you I have two advanced degrees in scientific fields of study. I founded a commercial data mining company to apply science to the consumer products industry. I have effectively used science my entire life. BUT, the purpose of science is to provide probabilities of certain cause and effect relationships within the physical world. There are many good uses for science. BUT there are both limitations and futility in science.

One limitation is that science can never include all influences on an outcome. So we rarely if ever see 100% probability of a cause and effect. For instance, science found that if water is put to a temp of 32 degrees F, it will become ice. Well, not exactly true. Not if the water is moving or flowing. Suppose science could take into account the relationship between speed of movement and temp and reach the conclusion that water moving at X speed will freeze at Y temp. OK, but what if there is another influence on water, like an infra red light that effects the molecules in a way other than temp. If this influence keeps water from freezing at any temp, then what is true about water turning to ice? This never ends. There is always the next discovery about an object. Further, science only can observe the observable. So science is limited to knowledge about the physical world. Limitations of science create a form of futility. Science can provide us some benefit, but in no way can science become the authority of truth.

If we are to provide Christians with the armor of God, not discounting the presence of the Holy Spirit, then we must arm them with effective defense of the Kingdom core assumptions. There are several important Kingdom core assumptions, but the one that is vital in Christian Worldview is - the authority of truth about something is the originator of that something. We gain knowledge of truth by both what we observe about an object and what is revealed to us by the originator. It is interesting that the root word for truth is "to disclose". We must learn how to put AUTHOR back into the meaning of AUTHORity. Transforming core assumptions transforms individuals, which then transforms cultures and societies.

The truth about sexual identity is not dependent on the power of science, but in the word of the One who created us. What does He say about our identity? That then, my friends, is the key question about truth ....

Pondering core assumptions is a very good thing to do and is the mission of b4Worldview !!