Why so serious?

Got the weight of the world on your shoulders? It’s enough that you have bills, pressures at work and a desire to make sure the kids grow up as functional and well-rounded as possible. Who’s got time to worry about “making the world a better place” let alone finding some time to enjoy yourself?

But you are a thoughtful person. In your quiet moments, you can’t help but concern yourself with the plights of humanity—the wars, the state of society, the bombings and shootings, the seemingly endless economic uncertainty—but what can you do? You’re just one person and you’ve got your own problems.

Without sounding too much like an infomercial sales pitch… Good news! You can have it all!

It’s true that there are limits on how much each of us as individuals can affect the course our societies are on. But that doesn’t mean we’re completely powerless. So, in the spirit of cheesy marketing list articles, I’m offering you the Seven Steps to a Better World! (cue triumphant orchestral music and B-movie narrator reverb)

Step one: Get Enjoyment: Cast off your cares once in a while. Have a good time. You’ll feel better, more equipped to face the challenges in your life, and those around you will find your elevated mood and sense of optimism infectious.

Step two: Hold Ideals: Decide for yourself what’s good and right and true. It’s important that your ideals are genuine, authentic and deeply rooted. Give yourself, those around you and society something to live up to.

Step three: Become Aware: Tune in to what’s going on around you. Why do the people around you do what they do, say what they say? What’s their perspective? Worldview? Emotional state? Social context? There’s usually much more going on within others than what manifests itself on the surface. 

Step four: Care About Others: It’s difficult not to view the whole of humanity as a number or series of statistics—7 billion is truly impossible to fathom. But resist this urge. Everyone on Earth is just like you—they want to be taken seriously. They want acceptance and validation. They need help sometimes, be it emotionally, physically or financially.

Step five: Do Your Best: You’re always doing something, whether it’s at work or school or for your own enjoyment. Every endeavor in your life requires a certain amount of creativity, commitment, diligence and concentration. Give it all you’ve got, all the time.

Step six: Heed What’s Right: Similar to “Hold Ideals,” this step takes it another level and asks you to do what’s right even in the face of mass opposition. It’s common that those around you—or even your entire society—are making disastrous decisions and following dangerous paths. If you’re aware of this, if you have your principles, it’s your responsibility to do what you know to be the right thing anyway. 

Step seven: See Unity: The truth of the matter is… we’re all in the same boat. Languages, borders, cultures, ethnicities, religions, ideologies and many other factors separate us. But our humanity unifies us. There is much more that all the peoples in the world have in common than they don’t.


These seven steps emerge in THEE as Primal Injunctions, deep within the Your Better Self framework. It’s an important framework, and very personal. Within it are the keys to one’s purpose in life, (discussed in the blog George’s Quest) discussions of spirituality, divinity and the struggle between good and evil.

But those are all heavy topics. Let’s stay focused.

This blog is designed to answer the questions of: What can I do about it? A blog entitled “Seven Steps to a Better World” could easily read something like: end war, poverty, corruption, greed, discrimination, disease and cookie-cutter pop teen sensations. But let’s be honest, there’s nothing you can personally do to bring all of those things about. However, if you and scores of other people can get a line on these Primal Injunctions, a better world could be just around the corner.

In a previous blog, I speculated about some of the potential dangers of our emerging technological revolution. So, I thought I’d provide a little balance and discuss how amazing it has been and how it might positively affect our future.

My mother has always been a tech-junkie. She used to school my brother and me on DOS programming and she had us building computers from the ground up for her little consulting business before we were teenagers. Things were pretty different back then. I probably couldn’t build a computer or write code these days.

Still, for me, computers and communication technology was just a part of growing up. I had no idea the implications that would result in the next couple of decades.

But let’s go back a few dozen millennia before we get into all that.

Roughly 35,000 years ago, homo sapiens started talking. Probably not the most sophisticated conversations—something along the lines of: “Hey, there’s a saber-toothed tiger over there. Time to go.” But nevertheless, it was a complete revolution, the likes of which Earth had never seen. Imagine—the first words spoken on planet Earth.

Of course, animals communicate with various signs and signals that convey meaning. But really, humans just started doing it better. They created a complex system of language that enabled them to build things and organize more complex endeavors. And it was only 20 thousand years or so before they started writing things down. Shortly thereafter, we saw helpful little things emerge like laws, record keeping, and literature. This led to educational institutions, primitive bureaucracies, civilization as we know it and much more. Another revolution, to be sure.

Then came the printing press. Ideas started spreading like wildfire. Literacy went on the rise and western society was finally able to cast off the shackles of the Catholic Church, divine right, serfdom and feudalism. Again, society took a giant step forward.

Now, 600 years later, we face a change no less radical than the ones previously mentioned. The running theme is a fundamental shift in the way we communicate. We’re already seeing the shrinking world, the dissolution of cultures separated by borders, heightened economic interdependence between nations and peoples, and the rising exposure to new and foreign ideas, ideologies and ways of life. The communication revolution is affecting nearly every facet of our lives from the way in which we relate to others via social media to how and where we do business. In under 20 years, the Internet has become the backbone of the global economy.

The political implications are fascinating. The Arab Spring revolutions mobilized on social media websites. The Occupy Wall Street movement went from a park in Manhattan to every major city in the U.S. in a matter of weeks. They coordinated protests and rallies. They shared information instantly. What the mainstream media conveniently left out as these movements developed, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook filled in.

A THEE inquiry into political development through time suggests that the next stage in our social growth will be guided by an ethic of mass mobilization. This probably wouldn’t be possible without the technology that’s been developed in the last couple of decades. And it’s so perfect—it fits so well into the model that history has conveniently constructed for us: changes in communication mean changes in everything.

But that’s not all. It’s possible that this ability to communicate more effectively with peoples outside of our own narrow cultures will dramatically broaden something more fundamental within our humanity, will alter the way in which we see ourselves and the whole of humankind. We here at the THEE Online Project are calling it the 21st Century Enlightenment:

• We might discover that the variety of approaches to life means a sort of committed relativity. We have our ways of living, handling others, working, raising families, etc. Others have their ways. Mine is right for me, theirs is right for them. And we might teach each other a few things along the way. Increased communication leads to greater awareness which leads to tolerance, understanding and mutual respect as sure as night follows day. That’s a good thing. 

• The ability of each person to express themselves and find an audience online can lead to a drive for each person to be authentic, or “true to themselves,” as it were. It’s already changing economics. Via social media, email and online reviews, companies now respond more quickly to the needs and wants of their consumers. We are seeing a two-way communication between business and customer. Perhaps politics can follow suit someday.  

• Finally, enhanced communication facilitates the search for answers—be they fact-based, spiritual, emotional or social. And access to raw information is just the beginning. Perhaps we can expect new life experiences to become part of the web, giving each individual greater range and opportunity than their locale and the people who surround them can offer. 

It’s difficult to say exactly how these phenomena will develop. But it is certainly exciting to know that our living at this point in time will most certainly contribute to a pivot-point in human history. Now there’s a reason to feel important.

Perhaps there is nothing more controversial than religion. Deeply embedded in every culture on Earth with its multiplicity of cosmologies and texts, religion has been a point of contention through the ages. In our supposed modern, enlightened societies, nothing has really changed.

I hope I live to see a THEE inquiry into this, to see the seven-legged beast that is religion. (You know, because all THEE hierarchies have seven levels.) There are bits and pieces on the website now. For example, we know that organized religion sits at the very top of a hierarchy called Society’s Natural Moral Institutions right above Governance systems. These moral institutions are packed within the sixth level (which always seems to be particularly significant) of the seven Approaches to Identity, which is nested in the fourth level of the Root Hierarchy—Experience. See the picture if you’d like.

This alone sheds quite a bit of light on religion—a moral institution directly connected to identity. While this might only be validation for many of us, THEE paints religion as something social rather than an Earthly representative of a deity or deities.

The Pros

Nominally, religion serves some important personal and social functions. The pious see religion as their pathway to closeness with God, a tool for spirituality, and it certainly can be a useful tool. However, spirituality is possible without religion and religion is possible without spirituality.

Religion can be useful as a connection with others and history through ritual and tradition. It serves to preserve important cultural practices and artifacts as well as provide an anchor for a collective identity that transcends national borders, time, language differences, race, gender and class. It’s a community thing.

Finally—as the placement of organized religion within THEE indicates—religion gives billions of people a moral framework from which to draw guidance as they go through their lives, making decisions and interacting with others.

The Cons 

Religion becomes contentious on two levels. First, it’s often more about empire building than spirituality, community or morals. Power-centered leaders use religious belief to place themselves and their adherents above others, justifying enslavement, wars, genocides and a host of other atrocities. 

Second, it comes down to an epistemological stalemate. One claims the ultimate truth of their text, their revelation, their spiritual leader. Every other religion makes the same claims. None can prove that they are right and the others are wrong, so debates and disagreements devolve into pettiness, name-calling and violence.

The Opposition 

Religion has always had its naysayers. Perhaps they were much quieter in previous epochs, but there have always been those who only see “The Cons.”

Today, we are seeing the emergence of a particularly vocal and inflammatory group rallying under the banner of “New Atheism.”

There’s nothing particularly new about their movement, except that perhaps they are exceptionally rude. Their loose organization exhibits most, if not all, of the features of a religion. They’ve got their sense of community and are in the process of forming their rituals—which as far as I can tell involves seeking out the religious to tell them how stupid they are.

They make similarly baseless and improvable assertions, such as that God most certainly does not exist, and they refer to The Origin of Species or The God Delusion as their infallible texts. Their prophets and preachers are the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Their cosmology lies in scientific speculation like the Big Bang or that lightning struck the primordial soup and life emerged or some such thing. As Terence McKenna said: “Give us one free miracle and we [science] will explain the rest!” If there isn’t currently a scientific explanation for something, well, we have faith that science will find the answer.

They answer the question of morals in various ways. Either morals are somehow innate which, interestingly, is a common argument among theologians like St. Augustine and C.S. Lewis. Or perhaps morals are a function of neurons firing. This is, of course, absurd. Electric signals between cells have nothing to do with morals. Or, perhaps they rely on social institutions to provide morals for them, such as (gasp!) organized religion? More likely, they would count on Level 6 of the Hierarchy of Society’s Natural Moral Institutions—Governance systems.

(Quick side-note on that topic—some argue that government has become a religion in some circles, offering guidance and exerting ideological control.)

Personally, I’m not religious. I tend to be quite wary of anyone claiming knowledge of any absolute truth—scientists, evangelists and atheists alike. This is not me coming to the defense of religion as a whole. But I am pointing out that:

• 1) Religion is an unmovable social institution. It has always been here, it will always be here, and it will certainly outlast the New Atheism movement. Its very existence in THEE solidifies it as an integral part of being human. 
• 
  
• 2) Religion is not useless or inherently harmful. Rather, it is of ultimate importance for some and serves some useful social functions despite lending itself to corrupt and ambitious leaders. 
• 
  
•  3) Organizations dealing in morality, community and cosmology are religious organizations, even if they are in name, anti-religious. 
• 
  
•  4) One of the main features of the 21st Century Enlightenment is accepting, respecting and empathizing with the multitude of viewpoints in our diverse and ever-evolving societies—not dedicating entire movements to tearing them down. 

Are you on board? I’d love to hear you readers weigh-in on this.

Just for fun, let’s do a bit of musing, speculation, daydreaming even about the future based on broad predictive generalizations discovered in THEE, specifically the Spiral of Political Maturation. 

Let’s imagine that it’s 100 years in the future.

Let’s assume that things are very different. Perhaps the human race has extricated itself from the current political mess. The plutocrats have been toppled, powerless in the face of mass collective action. Maybe banks don’t lend 100 times more than they possess after no more governments and international financial institutions were left that could afford to bail them out. Maybe bail-outs are a thing of the past, relegated to one of those laughable (yet unfortunate) pieces of history—like when doctors told us it was healthy to smoke. Maybe this entire list of things came true.

How did it happen?

Can’t really say except that we realized we created the mess, so we could create the pathway out.

This, the wars, the endless economic uncertainty, the political obfuscation, the faux democracy where votes are merely appeasement tactics, the totalitarian undercurrent that flows beneath the newspaper headlines, the corporate control, the bought policy, the endless noise of discord, the collective panic—let’s assume it’s all gone. What remains is a more pure democracy. Maybe votes are counted in tweets. The body of people make decisions for their society as one, rather than politicians making choices for their benefactors in bills and laws with names like “The Poverty Relief Act” or “The Patriot Act.”

Of course, it’s not utopia—whatever that is. There are still problems. Perhaps where every decision is made by the majority, the minority gets sandbagged. Maybe when we don’t trust the politicians anymore, (why would we, they burned us over and over again) leaders aren’t allowed enough power to make potentially important decisions, and the idealism that inspires us is no longer tolerated for fear that it’s merely another line of beautiful, yet empty words. Bringing it to the now, think “hope” and “change.” 

But how about technology, the brain candy of optimistic futurists who excitedly wait for the “hybrid human” and “the singularity?” New advances will have rocked society, no doubt. But the Internet is over 100 years old at this point. The novelty will have worn off. Are these mobile workers, once proud of their progressivism, still so new and exciting? Or are they the new cubicle workers, crowded into coffee shops for long hours and low pay?

Today, when the Internet is barely 20 years old, we’re already hearing complaints of dehumanization, disconnection, the new generation’s inability to read anything longer than 140 characters. What about privacy and individuality? Imagine a Facebook page that has broadcasted the minutia of a person’s entire life—from 13 years-old ‘till death. The study of history will be quite a bit less speculation perhaps, but what of your life do you get to keep for yourself?

A lifetime of one’s face bathed in the florescent glow of an iPad screen sounds grim to me, but I myself still have difficulties tearing myself away from the computer. At times, nature seems foreign and actually speaking with people face to face seems a chore.

THEE speaks of a spiritual crisis on our distant horizon. I am convinced this technological revolution will play a central role. When the soul of humanity is quiet, after the crushing confusion of our current society has settled down, we will have time to think about who and what we are and the world we’ve created for ourselves. It might not be pretty.

Do I have any real friends? Am I some sort of cyborg? Have Netflix and YouTube raised my children? Is education merely a series of Google searches?

Extreme? Perhaps, or not extreme enough.

What could happen if we live and move through humanity as a whole? The global village, the singularity of all of humanity’s interconnection, the distrust of idealism and individuality might amount to some homologous set of meta-values that aren’t actually values at all.

Will right and wrong, good and bad, beauty and truth and justice become some sort of watered-down relativity? Perhaps we will become the torch and pitchfork-wielding crowd—all 10 or so billion of us. 

Interesting questions, no answers. Of all the THEE frameworks, the Spiral of Political Maturation has most kept me on my toes. It gives me so much to wonder about and no specifics, which is understandable. We’re talking about the future. But it gives me a chance to wonder and speculate about the trajectory of society—which is always fun.

What do you think? Can technology only be a good thing, or do we have some reason to be wary?

The newbie walked in to The Don’s office. It was old-school classy: wingback stuffed leather chairs, snifters on a tall mahogany table, everything wood and deep red. A lingering cloud of smoke from the consigliore’s cigar hung in the air. He sat down across from The Don, who leaned back in his chair, a warm and welcoming look on his face.

“Sit down,” he said in his strained, breathy voice.

“Thank you Don,” the newbie said, a false air of confidence in his tone.

“I have a problem with Giuseppe’s wine shop on the corner of 3rd and Franklin,” The Don said, “I want you to take care of it for me.”

“Of course, Don,” the newbie replied, “anything for you.”

The Don said, suddenly grave and serious, “I want you to make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

The newbie was confused. He paused. His thick New Jersey accent came out and he said, “What, like a million dollars or something?”

The Don was flabbergasted. He swiveled his chair toward the consigliore, who stood behind him, stoic, and said, “Who is this guy, I thought you said he could be trusted.” He swiveled back toward the newbie. “No, I want you to threaten to rub him out.”

The newbie was visibly shaken, nervous. He said, his voice quivering, “I don’t understand, Don, like with a big eraser?”


Where can I go with this? Is newbie politely escorted out of the room? Shot? Given formal instruction on the lingo of the mob?

Perhaps The Don would have been better off being more concrete, something along the lines of:

“I want you to get in your car, drive to 3rd and Franklin, park your car, walk into Giuseppe’s wine shop and inform him in no uncertain terms that we will kill him unless he gives us our money.”

What we have here is a case of associative language gone awry. Of course, if you’ve seen any of The Godfather movies, you know what The Don was talking about. This method of using language is one of the reasons language so often goes wrong.

Imagine being a third wheel in a conversation between two very old friends. They seem to speak in code, complete with inside jokes, references to experiences only they shared, nicknames, subtext, words with double meanings and slang. No doubt you and your friends or significant other have a similar sort of way of communicating.

It’s also one of the reasons learning a new language can be difficult. I spent a year studying French in college before actually traveling to France. I was so confident with my conjugations, my infinitives and had built a nice working vocabulary. But when I got there, I found it was one thing to make myself understood—not terribly difficult—but it was nearly impossible to understand anyone. I can only assume what I was hearing was a barrage of informal, associative language.

This use of language framework in THEE is a relatively new and underdeveloped addition to the website. Much is yet to be discovered or not quite precise enough and it cries out for your feedback. 

This is one of those THEE phenomena that, when you read it, you realize that it’s referring to something very common and unremarkable in your life, something you’ve known intuitively for as long as you could speak. But it’s when depicting the whole that it becomes useful.

Associative language is one of seven types of using language, and maybe the most common. But knowing about the other six is useful because each of them have their appropriate time and place. For example, you use Concrete language when you follow a recipe. You take advantage of Universal language when you read a newspaper article about a complex topic outside of your expertise. Ironically, those with expertise in said topic may find the article total garbage, because their knowledge on the topic has them using Conceptual language, which allows for far greater understanding of complex concepts.

As a writer and artist, I take the most pride in my work when I effectively use Gestalt language, the language type designed to awaken inner awareness and excite passion, rich in metaphor, metonymy and imagery. It is the language of the poets, sages and great orators.

Understanding the differences in using language types goes along way in communicating effectively. In what type would you say this blog is written?

The line a mountain range creates against a blue-sky backdrop; the waves on a beach—one timidly approaching your toes, the next engulfs your knees; the dizzying scope of diversity of life on Earth; a spinning rock hurtling through space, circling a raging fireball, itself hurtling through space. It all seems so random, like there’s no rhyme or reason to it all—just pure happenstance. Our very existence defies incredible odds.

A blade of grass’ existence defies incredible odds. But upon closer examination, there’s an order to everything. Perhaps at times, it’s so complex that understanding it would be impossible—or just too much work. But the rules of physics and chemistry and biology are consistent throughout. Take a wider perspective and it’s easy to realize that Earth is far from the only rock spinning through space. And with all those planets and all those stars, it’s almost silly to think ours is the only one with life. What’s more, life on another planet almost certainly conforms to the same basic rules of physics, chemistry and biology that life on Earth does.

Randomness is an illusion. And though it can be a convincing one at times, it can only fool you if you’re merely scanning the surface of physical phenomena.

What about the non-physical? Perhaps there are parallels.

First of all, is there a non-physical?

Some (even many) claim that there isn’t. But they’re ignoring some pretty obvious stuff. Is there such a thing as language, you might ask? Anyone would undoubtedly agree that there is. “But that is merely a human construction,” they might reply.

Exactly.

Humans constructed language; it now undeniably exists. Humans also constructed societies, which also undoubtedly exist. But are these tangible objects? Obviously, their products are. Without language, there would be no books for example. Without societies, there would be no social institutions, like religions or governments. But these physical phenomena originated within humans somehow. Is it possible to look into those origins?

Moving on…

Is there a “human nature?” Truly, we are all unique, but aren’t we all the same as well?

I found that traveling confirmed this for me.

Still, doesn’t human endeavor seem random and chaotic? Think about the staggering variation that arises out of 7 billion individual “wills” acting out their own little dramas simultaneously.

But again, we’re looking at things from too wide an angle.

Let’s examine spirals. They occur with shocking regularity in nature, from the double helix of a DNA strand to the formation of nautilus shells to massive spiral galaxies. And check out this video:



 Crazy, right!? We’re moving through a spiral at this very moment! As it turns out, each of us is probably moving through more than a few spirals at this very moment.

They emerge in THEE as well—a structure of the non-physical aspects of living a human life. Spirals represent our movement and progression through various states of existence in time. Much like nature’s spirals, they range from small (individual) such as the spiral of career development to massive (social) tracking society’s political development.

A clarification and classification of psychological and social elements as found in THEE is proof that there is order in the microcosm of each individual person. There is order in their interactions, their decisions, their communication, and anything else that is unique to being human.

Within each of us lies a structure (albeit an abstract one) that can be ordered and studied as usefully and concretely as the periodic table of elements.

Of course, THEE is highly complex and dynamic. But particle physics is complex and dynamic.

The hope is that someday, perhaps in a distant future, humanity will embrace this new way of understanding of itself. That added bonus? THEE does not exclude any existing knowledge. Perhaps the most succinct way to describe THEE:

“We structure the world using the structure that structures us.”

Last week, I talked about my experiences with rising to a challenge and being creative in my blog, “Tuna Sandwiches, Tattoos and the Dreaded Stork.” It got me thinking—as I often do—about politics. 

Do nations and societies get creative in the same sense? Must they face a challenge with positivity and optimism? While it’s true that there is no psychosocial entity without individuals (governments, organizations and societies could not exist without individuals), can these concepts geared toward individuals apply to larger social structures?

It seems a logical leap. There is a sense of a collective optimism, or pessimism. That, I imagine, is what’s pollsters hope to convey with things like approval ratings and media scholars look for in their surveys of newspaper editorials. What’s the general malaise, the overall sentiment, the zeitgeist?

My sense—just based on my observations of my society—is that the current malaise is anything but positive or optimistic. I feel that the average person can’t even wrap their head around the knot of problems they and their societies face these days.

Despite my strong urge to do so, I’ll spare you the list of said problems. You probably know as well as I do. But I’ll give a couple of examples.

I’m taking a class in college this semester in which the professor has decided it will be fun for us all to get together and discuss the most controversial, hot button topics of the day. Just imagine! Most of my classmates are significantly younger than me, even by as much as a decade. The professor is quite liberal, and he has disclosed that fact, He’s assigned a book to guide our discussions that is about a stone’s throw away from the Communist Manifesto. Let’s just say I’ve become the class devil’s advocate.

Anyway, what comes out of these discussions is often sheer, soul-crushing defeatism. Democracy is hopeless, capitalism is a fraud, people are greedy and selfish and destructive. And there’s nothing anybody can do about it. The worst part: the professor agrees! This authority figure charged with molding young minds is basically indoctrinating us with his neg-head worldview. There's not much to be gained when we just say how much everything sucks.

Or look at this comment I ran across on the popular social news site, Reddit. The forum topic was: “If you could remove anything from existence, what would it be?” One answer:

“Humanity. Humans are failures of evolution. We've completely lost touch with nature and now we're defending ourselves from diseases that should have killed us. We are an infestation. I would prefer for life to continue on the planet, and with humans, that doesn't seem possible.” 

Yikes! I mean, I’m no stranger to online drama, but that one really struck me. I just wanted to give the guy a hug and say, “C’mon now buddy, we’re not so bad.”

The truth is we’re not totally bad, or evil, or some sorry lot of ne’er do well’s. Life can be difficult, with regular conflict or even continuous struggle. More than the idea that some people are good and some are not, the truth is that people without awareness find themselves tricked by charisma or self-protection into releasing their worse sides and calling it good.

Really think about it. For every news report about a murder or rape or the oppression of peoples by a heartless dictator, there are thousands of untold stories. Stories of small kindnesses, great personal triumphs, or even the day-to-day humdrum of parents going to work, paying their bills and spending a nice afternoon at the park with their kids. That’s beautiful stuff.

My classmates lament that America produces so few rags-to-riches tales. They ask: Where is the next Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet? My answer? Well, he’ll be here eventually, but what about the average guy who is the first in his family to graduate from college, get a decent-paying job and live everyday proud that he can comfortably provide for his family. That story happens every single day.

I get it. I do. I have these feelings of dread. I doubt the virtue of my culture, my country, and the human race. But then I just take a look around my neighborhood. There’s nothing but good, decent people. Literally.

It’s just a matter of perspective and to simply remember that goodness is not rare. I bet you’d be hard-pressed to think of even one person you know who truly and deliberately wants an unhappy life, a crime-ridden, dysfunctional society or the pain and suffering of others. There really aren’t that many out there. In fact, I would submit that evil barely even exists at all, just less good and people who have lost their way.

As for the social/political/economic problems we face, it’s going to work out some way or another. I’m optimistic. We are a species of wondrous creativity.

I remember it well, learning that I would soon be having a daughter. I was making a tuna sandwich at a restaurant I had been working for. It was a slow day at the office and I was afforded the luxury of playing on my phone while watching the buttered bread slowly turn brown on the grill. The text message read: “Guess what, daddy?”

Not much guessing was required.

It was a shock… well, not too much of a shock. I know how these things work. But it was enough that I went outside and sat on a box around the back of the restaurant for a while until my coworker—a heavyset fellow covered in tattoos—came out and asked me in his thick New Jersey accent, “Well, what are you going to do?”

I replied, “I don’t know.”

Funny how society changes, isn’t it? 100 years ago, that probably wouldn’t have even been a question. But, for better or worse, parents have “choices” these days. Ah… perhaps that’s a discussion for another time.

I knew nothing of THEE at the time, but looking back, the next several months fit quite nicely into the Creativity in Endeavors framework.

But back to the story…

So, having babies is about as unremarkable a human activity as anything, but it’s major, right!? It was a big deal for me. I had my moments of crippling dread and anxiety, which I dealt with by watching a lot of TV for some reason.

For the most part, though, I was positive about it. I remember my girlfriend (now wife) and I getting each other excited about names. We’d get all down on how much it would cost, lamenting the demise of our social lives or dreading the idea of a crying little creature occupying our early mornings. Then we’d snap out of it, playfully arguing about what we would name the baby or getting excited because we found a tiny little shirt with The Beatles logo on it or something.

It was, and continues to be, a major challenge, and I made myself rise to it. Looking back, I realize how I just fully committed to the whole endeavor at some point, just barreled into it like a freight train. Now, I’ve got a little four year-old and being somehow not completely entangled in this whole parenting thing is unimaginable.

Now, this wasn’t the first time I had successfully risen to a challenge. Beforehand, I had built myself a semi-solid little music career out of sheer willpower and, well, I guess the ability to play music. But that was somehow different and probably just the byproduct of the drive to be creative. On the other hand, being half-hearted about other things, namely college, caused me to waste a lot of time and money and resulted in 5 years of education resulting in a two-year associates degree.

The best part of all of this: Our little family got on a roll. Something clicked. We realized, without the formal names that THEE attributes to these phenomena, that we had a way of approaching our endeavors that works for us. (It may not work for you except in a broad sense. Creativity is personal. Such is the nature of human endeavor.) These days, rather than having some giant challenge dropped in our laps, we come up with them on our own—and apply what we know about ourselves to make them happen. We bought a house, got better jobs, traveled extensively, continued our education and now, we’re planning to move back to my wife’s homeland. Why? We like a challenge. And really, nothing seems too daunting when you’ve got a good attitude and your sphere of what is and what is not realistic expands.

This part of the Taxonomy is difficult to write about at times. On one hand, telling people they need to be positive about the challenges in their lives is either a no-brainer or might come off as patronizing. On the other hand, it’s the most basic, useful, instantly applicable framework for you, right now, whatever you’re doing.

Furthermore, the language in the Creativity frameworks allows me to explain psychosocial reality and “human elements” to people who want to know. Would you agree that being positive is helpful when faced with a challenge? If so, then you must acknowledge that “positivity” exists and humans use it. But you can’t touch it… but it’s real… so it must exist somewhere outside of the physical world?

Why yes, it exists in psychosocial reality, it’s a human element, and THEE has a place for it with all of the other human elements.

Tune in next week and I’ll apply this framework to something much larger than me and my family life. I think you’ll like it.

The city held its breath, eerily quiet despite the sound of bullhorns, drums and hundreds of feet slapping against the concrete, all reverberating off the sides of tall bank buildings. These buildings housed “the enemy,” who no doubt looked down upon this island of bodies, making its way like a centipede through the narrow maze of streets with wonder and amusement.

In the crowd, faces not covered by black handkerchiefs or Guy Fawkes masks flashed passion and anger. They hoisted their signs with gusto and began chanting, “Banks got bailed out! We got sold out!”

Who are these people? Why are they willing to brave the looks of derision, fear and scorn? What drives them to take time out of their lives to try and change things far larger than themselves?

These are society’s fire starters. They are every bit as important to the overall good as the politicians, the entrepreneurs, the academics and the workers. THEE calls them cause-centered, and describes them as follows:

“Striving for some genuinely held greater good can be experienced as intrinsically beneficial, and such people build their social life accordingly. Their motto: Fight the good fight!” 

I wrote about my experiences with the Occupy movement in a previous blog. Over a year later, it seems to have largely fizzled. No more marches, no more mention in the press, but I would dispute that the message disappeared, rather it migrated to Facebook memes and classroom discussions, policy prescriptions and punditry. Really, it’s everywhere you look and it’s part of a giant rift in American society.

In a way, that’s fantastic! Nothing ever changes if everybody sits around and waits for someone else to do something—and America certainly has problems.

Now, I’m convinced—partially as a result of my research in THEE—that the best solution to many of our social problems, from poverty to inequality to crime to war and conflict, is hitching a ride on the road to prosperity. And much of that depends on entrepreneurs—or market-centered individuals. You know, the folks willing to try out new things and come up with new ideas and innovations because, well, they want to make a bunch of money. But these are the bad guys now!

Of course, it’s not the banksters (as they’re now known) or the corporate lackeys that I’m speaking of, but the regular enterprising people willing to front a risk and take responsibility for their own lot in life. They want to make money in a particular way: by responding to what others value and currently cannot get or can’t get at a proper quality or decent price or both. In a free enterprise culture, such people prize trust and reputation highly. Sleazy dealings are an anathema.

I can’t imagine a march to the Capitol Building steps to protest over-regulation, or the lack of individual responsibility, to promote free enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit. It’s unthinkable! It’s so far removed from the current reality that the very thought of it seems absurd.

I could be wrong, of course. I’ve heard tell of a group of bloggers in the SF Bay area who seem to be promoting this particular cause, but if I am to call it as I see it, their influence pales in comparison to the movement to send us barreling toward bigger government, more bureaucratic control and subsequently, less individual responsibility/autonomy. We really need more cause-centered people to get after this issue if we’re to move toward prosperity.

Interestingly, (and this showcases some of the predictive powers of THEE), the social democracy movement is gaining steam as we stand on the precipice of two major shifts in society. The first, from Plutocratic Pluralism to Conventionalism, will come after a crash caused by, among other things, putting too much trust in the government’s ability to engineer society. The second, the 21st Century Enlightenment, will probably creep up on us, be much less stressful, and promote the virtues of responsibility, being authentic to oneself, and respecting a new kind of diversity. It certainly points to a powerful combination lurking on our horizon.

Grasping this stuff is systems thinking on a grand scale, and probably beyond me. I’ll leave it to you to click the links and put it together for yourself. But I do get an inkling at times as to the possible timeline of events. Government in the last 15 years or so seems to be taking more and more liberties, if its not Obama’s incredible number of executive orders, it’s the European Union’s encroachment on distinct political territories.

I’m sure I’m not the only one watching how society develops with increasing alarm, but I do feel fortunate that I have a much better chance at understanding it—and what’s to come—thanks to THEE. And I look forward to the day when the next sign-waving crowd to snake through my city asks that we put our destiny back in the hands of the people.

“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” –Oscar Wilde 

It seems a bit pessimistic, doesn’t it? As if we are all a fraud somehow, deriving all that we are from someone else in an attempt to be more or better than we are in reality.

Could it be true? Mr. Wilde does have a reputation as a keen observer of humanity. As it turns out—yes, but probably not in the way Oscar meant it.

Work in the Taxonomy has revealed something called “Model Beings.”

These “beings” embody the perfect and complete form of what we, ourselves, are. They exist in our imagination’s ivory towers and we hold ourselves up against them to see where we stand in relation to perfection.

This idea is not at all new. Plato advocated the same thing with his forms, but rather than imagining perfect beings, he imagined perfect values. Nietzsche constructed a model being around power and domination with his Superman. And Jung’s archetypes are similar in that they are imagined entities representing parts of ourselves.

The difference is that the 7 model beings discovered in THEE represent the perfect version of each of the 7 Primal Quests. (For a blog about the quests, see here how The Beatles’ George Harrison manifested quite a few of them.) Suffice it to say, we’re all on a quest or two, from which we derive the purposes of our respective lives.

But in doing so, something must exist to guide us on our quest. That’s where Model Beings come in. And, as divinity is a part of the human imagination, this is the part of the Taxonomy where divinity shows up. It can seem a bit “out there.” Believe me, I get it. Purpose of Life? Divinity? Perfection? Even WK, THEE’s creator and foremost researcher, has expressed certain reservations, shall we say, about getting into things like divinity. It can be a contentious topic.

I tend to try and explain things I learn in THEE to my wife—she’s mildly interested, plus it helps me to get a fix on what I don’t understand. Consider this conversation:

Me: “Think about the creative quest, right? What’s the ultimate creator?”

Her: “An artist?”

Me: “No, not just art, creation of everything. You know, a creator.” (I’m laying it on pretty thick at this point.)

Her: (Getting slightly impatient.) I don’t know. What?

Me: “God. God created everything, God’s the ultimate creator? You know, ‘Let there be light' and all that.”

Her: (skeptical) “What?”

Me: “No, no it’s not that God necessarily exists out there in space or something, it’s that people on a creative quest see the ‘ultimate creator’ as a model being. It’s just to, like, compare yourself.”

Her: “And you’re on a creative quest, then.”

Me: “I think so, yes.”

Her: “So, you compare yourself to God?”

Me: (Trapped) “Oh dear.” Her: “I knew it!”

 The model being for those on a Salvation Quest is similarly fantastic. The classic example (at least in my culture) is Jesus:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. –John 3:17

What better model for someone on a Salvation Quest—someone who’s sense of purpose comes from helping others, saving others—than Jesus Christ? In this case, the Model Being is labeled “World Saviors.”

There are 5 more Model Beings. Not all of them quite so divine, shall we say, but some of them even more so. For those of us on a Pleasure Quest or a Meaning Quest, we don’t have to look far for our Model Beings. They could be a celebrity or within our self. It is simply us… just better, which is perfect considering the framework within which these Model Beings can be found is called Your Better Self.

These figures, these Model Beings, have always existed via mankind. They are presented in mythic tales, stories around the campfire, moral platitudes, bedtime stories, films, literature, academia, thoughts, actions—everywhere you look. The rub is that they are different for everyone. Each individual has their own, nuanced take—which might explain the contention between religious groups, sects and denominations, even within the major religions.

 Clearly, this begs the question: What is your model being?

I’ve often marveled at the ingenuity, the cooperation and the will it has taken to create the European Union, particularly when you consider Europe’s long, contentious history. In many ways, it is an amazing achievement.

But this consortium of nations has been racked with problems for the last three years or so, and I imagine many people—or the ones who care—are wondering: “What on Earth is going on over there!?” Because even I, with my strong connections to that corner of the world, am wondering the same thing… major debt issues, something about Greece and Spain being broke… is that it?

I think if we were to create a parallel to the U.S., it might be something like: Florida, Texas and Georgia are financially upside down and California and New York have to foot the bill. But would anything ever be so bad as to warrant hundreds of billions of dollars in aid money to these states? It seems a bit excessive… Oh wait, we don’t bail out our states, we bail out our corporations. Ok, it’s making a bit more sense now.

But analysts say the apex of the fiscal crisis has passed. Maybe, but a whole new set of problems are coming to light—and it’s not too hard to see why. Check out this New York Times article. It’s a great little piece of journalism. Not only because of the accurate insights of the writer, Andrew Higgins, but also because of the reality-oriented comments from the sources he chose to include in the article.

The basic premise is this: Politicians around Europe are taking a break from Eurozone crisis hand-wringing and turning their attention to things like elections in their own countries and pressing domestic concerns. As Thomas Klau, head of the Paris office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, put it: “Now that markets no longer hold a knife under leaders’ throats, they are slipping back into their normal mode, which is to manage their own immediate reality.”

One of those concerns is a growing dissatisfaction with the European Union. Big surprise, right? Taxpayers in the wealthier countries—France and Germany—have funded much of nearly 500 billion Euro bailouts while citizens of the cash-strapped countries like Greece, Italy, Ireland and Portugal have been forced by EU mandates to tighten their belts and make concessions to wheeling and dealing politicians. Everybody is getting the screws.

This is nothing that hasn’t been said before. The question is, what does this have to do with THEE?

Well, quite a bit really. In response to a crisis, European Union politicians were able to quickly consolidate enormous amounts of power and money. Decisions were made for entire countries at a tier above where they should be made—that being within those individual countries rather than at the level of A Consortium of Nations. Popular dissatisfaction with the EU is forcing government leaders to refocus on more appropriate political territories—that being their direct constituents.

Naturally, people are resentful of those outside of their communities/regions/states/nations making decisions for them. During my travels in Europe, I asked friends, family and acquaintances what they thought about the EU. And from France to Germany to the Czech Republic, I heard different versions of the same complaint. An old man in Prague told me he felt it was no different than when the Soviets were in charge: some political body in some far-flung city (then Moscow, now Brussels) were telling the Czechs how to live their lives.

Part of the problem is a sort of twisting of two distinct types of political territory, as defined by THEE. First, there is a social territory where cohesion is created with a shared language, culture, history and an innate sense of togetherness Second, there is a service territory—much more artificial and arbitrary but nonetheless important—where governing bodies like the EU or a even a city council attempts to exercise political control. Simply put, they’re applying one-size-fits-all solutions to a myriad of social territories. And not-so-coincidentally, THEE mentions Soviet Russia under Stalin as an example of getting this distinction wrong.

Now, David Cameron of the UK is putting a referendum to his people, giving them the option of withdrawing completely from the EU. France and Germany—who have bared the brunt of sacrifice in the name of unity—are accusing him and Britain of “cherry picking” which EU policies he does and does not follow Many fear the Union could unravel completely. To me, it makes perfect sense why they would want to cherry pick and it seems inevitable that, in time, the Union will unravel. The UK is not France or Germany or Greece. Britain’s problems cannot be solved without a uniquely British solution. And that concept goes for every country in the world.

 Let’s just hope the Nobel Prize Committee is right and they won’t all start killing each other again.

I always thought how fun it would be to become the world’s foremost expert on something. I can see the newscast attribution:

Dr. Tom Kershaw, leading expert on 10th Century Viking expansion into Eastern Europe. 

There I would be, in the middle of some arcane diatribe on Cnut the Great and the population explosion of the Slavs in Kievan Rus’ after 1100.

I would probably be quite giddy and nervous, as there is no reason I can think of that an expert on this matter would ever be on a newscast—perhaps if there was some revolutionary archeological finding in Poland.

Maybe my time has passed. I’m sort of a journalist now, and my expertise is supposed to be sounding like an expert in anything and everything—like Will Durant. Ever heard of this guy? He traveled the world 7 or 8 times before the 1930s and ended up writing a 9-volume history of the humanity called The Story of Civilization. It goes from pre-history in Africa through all the great empires of Rome, China, Mongolia, Persia, etc.—all the way up to Napoleon. He died before he could get any further. And each volume is 1,000 pages or more—very well written as well.

You’d be tempted to think: this guy knows everything! But just imagine how much he left out. Really, in the entire scope of human history, nine, 1,000-page volumes probably glosses over most of details. Now that I think of it, there was only passing mention of the Vikings. It’s cool though, it’s not like they helped shape Europe, and thus Western civilization or anything.

Anyway… This little musing is brought to you by THEE’s Interacting for Benefit framework. More specifically, the spiral of career development and even more specifically than that, stage 3: Commit to a Path.

Committing to a path is basically specialization, which seems more and more difficult in this post-modern world. I see it in the music business. Every musician now must be a multi-instrumentalist, a sound engineer, a fashionista, tour bus driver, promoter and social media manager. And as a writer/blogger, you’ve got to be able to write as well as take into account social media, SEO, promotions and networking.

That being the case, it might be more important than ever that we remind ourselves to really hone-in on something specific. For example, I spent much of my earlier years as a professional musician advertising myself as “that multi-instrumentalist guy.” I was the guy you call in a pinch when your bassist or drummer of guitarist can’t make the gig. It was a lot of fun—and it could be argued that this is a form of specialization all its own—but it’s rather limiting in terms of long-term projects. As it turns out, there are quite a few guitarists, bassists, pianists, etc. who are quite a bit better at their chosen instrument than me and therefore, they are more desirable options for musical entrepreneurs trying to put together something solid and potentially more lucrative in the future.

It might not matter much for many of us by stage 3. Not completing all 7 stages of career development doesn’t mean you are, or will be, a failure. Many of us do just fine in life after mastering stage 1: Do the Job Well.

But everyone is different. For my part, without knowing anything about THEE, it was my intention to skip Stage 2: Work the System by striking out on my own as a freelance writer. And I did for a time. But by joining TOP and confronting the newness of THEE as well as the specifics of the job, I've been thrust back to Stage 1: Do the Job Well. Yet, I maintain other clients and continue my education, hoping to ultimately find my niche--which might end up being THEE. Or political analysis. Or fiction. Or songwriting... and I'm back to where I was as the "mile wide and an inch deep" guy that defined my music career.

Now, for me, the challenge is stage 3. I guess it’s time to get my ducks in a row. Even any Viking worth his salt had to specialize in something: sailing, pillaging… skull cup manufacturing.

Welcome to part 3 of my little series on freedom as THEE sees it. We started with Individual Freedom, moved on to Freedom in Organizations and now, the big one folks… Freedom in Society!

I tend to see freedom in society as a two-part equation, with both parts equally important. We need balance, like in an algebraic expression.

On one side, society accounts for the full range of human diversity. People should be free to believe what they want, pursue the activities and interests that they feel are appropriate for them, practice whatever lifestyle they choose and, in short, be themselves freely without fear or oppression. This includes all manner of races, religions, genders and sexual orientations. The caveat being, of course, they don’t hurt anyone else doing whatever it is they do.

You could say that understanding and using THEE rests almost entirely on this principle: awareness and respect for diversity is paramount and that achievement is inextricably wrapped up in identity. However, THEE goes much further than race, religion, etc. in identity identification. These are but superficial human qualities in comparison to things like THEE mentalities—fixed mindsets about how you decide or how you get on with others. This is, and has been, a topic for another blog.

The West has made incredible strides in the arena of accepting diversity and allowing people to live out their lives in peace. There is much work to be done, but if viewed from the perspective of all of human history, the last 100 years or so has seen major breakthroughs from allowing women to vote to the Civil Rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement and more.

There are many parts of the world that cannot say the same—be it the treatment of Kurds in Iraq or Christians in Egypt or homosexuals and women in the Muslim world. Many people still hide and/or fight for their lives simply because of who they are.

But Western society (though we couldn’t say the same for our governments), is heading in the right direction, I think. The time is right for us to delve deeper into what makes people different and diverse. See above links on identity, decision and getting along with others to get started.

It’s the other side of the equation where things appear to be headed down a dark path.

To get a clear picture, let’s think in terms of another ultimate value for a moment: equality.

Ideals of social equality can be viewed two ways: equality of opportunity or equality of result.

Perhaps as a byproduct of advancements in our first type of freedom (freedom of identity), the West seems to have chosen to prefer equality of opportunity. This is not a new concept by any means. For an eloquent and poignant argument, read Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.

We as a society have adopted a set of values where the goal, the endgame, is an equal standard of living for all. It comes from a place of goodwill in the human spirit and it is the blueprint for the West’s social welfare democracies. But in the end it hampers freedom.

THEE outlines the benefits of freedom of opportunity in the Spiral of Political Maturation’s Individualist Mode. When freedom of opportunity trumps equality of result, we get a prosperous society where there is incentive to work hard, use your talents and get creative. America, for example, has always been called by its residents “The Land of Opportunity” where any industrious citizen or immigrant can make a nice life for themselves based on their merits and hard work.

But cries of inequality have paved the way to a culture of entitlement, where government appears to be the solution for everything. We look to government to stamp out poverty and hunger—and they (sort of) do with food and cash assistance. We look to government to provide us with education—which they do (in the U.S.) with government loans. We look to government to provide us with housing—and they do in government housing projects. We look to government to provide us with ever more safety and security—which they do with an ever-growing prison system, paramilitary police forces, enormous military expenditures, surveillance systems, the PATRIOT Act, the NDAA and on and on and on.

Like frogs in boiling water, some of us are starting to see the bubbles rise to the surface. POP! You need the government to eat, perhaps the most basic human need. Better not rock the boat or you might starve. POP! You’re tens of thousands of dollars in debt to the government for your college degree. It’s turning into a rolling boil now. Housing projects are festering sores on society, seeding the ever-expanding prison industrial complex. The water is roaring, steam is pouring out. You’re being watched everywhere you go, drones fly over your neighborhood, your phone is being tapped, all your emails are screened and police show up to peaceful protests with grenade launchers and tanks—and it’s all completely legal.

This is not freedom. It’s polite totalitarianism. And anyone courageous enough to call it as they see it is a paranoid lunatic.

Not to mention, the expanding bureaucracy and the constant call for tighter, stricter regulations chokes the private sector, the common man’s only chance at class mobility. For example, it costs $14,000 to get a two-year permit to sell $1 hot dogs on the street in New York City. The poorly-conceived decisions of the financial class (who are propped-up by government-funded corporate welfare, the other side of the corporatocracy coin) have paralyzed banks and business loans are next to impossible to come by.

The next technological revolution, the next activist entrepreneur, the next small business in your neighborhood could be buried under a pile of red tape.

Do you want job security? Get a government job. In countries like France and Germany, the public sector accounts for between 30 and 40% of the economy. Unfortunately, governments don’t make money; they only spend their people’s money. But who will be left to pay taxes? A government employee paying taxes is as ridiculous as a central bank printing money. It does absolutely no good for the bottom line. They’re currently making up for it in France by taxing people up to 75% of their income. Where is the incentive to succeed?

The expanding network of problems is so tight; there is no visible way to extricate ourselves from it. Society needs a complete reordering. And the only thing that can do that is some sort of meltdown. And it’s a major bummer, but THEE saw it coming—from the rising power of the financial class to the growth of the welfare state to the inevitable crash.

*Sigh…*

The saddest part: we brought all of this on ourselves.

There will come a time with this blog will be dated and we’ll have to reevaluate freedom in society.

Until then…

I hope to see you, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed on the other side, ready to put some work into a new and better world.

Human relationships are so delicate. It seems as though we’re all fumbling through the darkness, bumping into each other’s feelings and egos while grappling endlessly with our own.

We’re complex creatures, full of double-talk, misconceptions about ourselves and others, built-in hypocrisy, confusion and dissatisfaction. Do animals have these problems?

I ran across a THEE page about The Struggle for Power in Politics, where it says: “Being human seems to mean never feeling safe enough, valued enough, appreciated enough, wealthy enough, powerful enough and treated well enough.”

I guess that’s why the old saying about “a dog’s life” comes across as so wistful makes it seem so idyllic. Dogs don’t care. Does that mean the trick is apathy? Or, to philosophize it, should we just surrender, allow ourselves be blown about by the winds of fate and happenstance?

It’s all very Buddhist, and probably way too simple. Beyond that, we can’t help caring—about our endeavors, the people in our lives, our children, society at large, our money, etc.

For all of our complexity, we try so hard to simplify everything: “women are emotional; men are rational.” We torture ourselves with magical thinking: “If I can just get another job, or move to the beach, everything will suddenly be coming up roses.”

Perhaps the “trick” is realizing there are no tricks and no shortcuts to understanding relationships or leading a fulfilling, aware life of which healthy relationships are an integral part.

“What does THEE have to say about relationships?” you might ask, knowing full well that I’ll be coming to that eventually.

Well, that’s the thing, THEE is complicated. Why? Because THEE is us, and we’re complicated. THEE is contradictory dualities, balancing acts between freedom and constraint, changes through time, creativity in commitment (particularly in respect to significant others) and it separates—for the purpose of giving us a chance at understanding—things that are interrelated while acknowledging the unity of being human.

See my blog, “The Multidimensional Person,” for a discussion about this, but as an example, you might think that Interacting for Benefit contains all you need to know about getting along with the people in your life—and it so simply puts us all into one of seven categories!

Well, not so fast, because dealing with others also involves making decisions, alone or in a group. And given that the way in which people make decisions is a source of much conflict, it’s a huge factor. It’s going to be helpful to become aware of decision-making. Furthermore, any group that makes decisions has an element of politics as well.

THEE can help with relationships. But it’s not going to give you any answers. First of all, to use an analogy, if what is available on the THEE website is, say Venus, all that it is to be human is the entire solar system. Much more remains to be discovered than is currently accessible—and you are more than welcome to contribute.

What it can do is orient you toward reality. No magical thinking, no black and white answers, no stroking of your ego—just a plea for you to awaken your awareness of what’s really going on with you, the people in your life, the society you inhabit and the entire scope of humanity.

What kind of relationships can we realistically hope for if so many more of us wake up? Well, we here at the THEE Online Project call the next step toward this world the 21st Century Enlightenment.

There has been a very long campaign in my state to add the words “sexual orientation” to the list of things that are protected by law. This means being gay or straight would not be a legal excuse to fire someone or not hire them or deny them a loan or any such thing.

Well, the state governing body in Idaho, the Idaho Legislature, denied the initial request. But, the city council in my city, Boise, Idaho, has approved the request. There was at once much celebration and much hand-wringing across the city.

It’s interesting, these laws about identity. Clearly, they are useless in convincing the citizenry to see those who are different as equals—that’s a personal matter and a matter of values—but they do attempt to deter anyone from treating these different types of people poorly because of said differences—which is kind of nice! I mean, if you’re a manager who doesn’t like gay people, all you have to do is not hire a gay person for some other reason, and you’re home free—but it’s the thought that counts.

Anyway… It got me thinking. Perhaps we should go a step further. While being a certain race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation is a rather well-recognized aspect of identity, there’s really much more about identity that really is not well understood—and if we start legislating identity-related issues, we’re ultimately going to see quite a few more laws.

People are different, right? They believe in different gods and eat different foods or speak different languages. We see this in spades in the U.S., the immigrant capitol of the world—and possibly all of history—and for the most part, we do a pretty good job of handling ourselves. (Obviously, there are some disturbing things, like the fact that the majority of people in U.S. prisons are not white. But what I’m saying is that it’s not Saddam Hussein’s treatment of the Kurds or Israel-Palestine over here.)

But are these relatively superficial characteristics all that make us different or unique? Not even close. Personally, I’d like to see some legal protection --> for activists and zealots who are furthering their cause peacefully, what THEE calls cause-centered people. I’ve been intimidated by police on more than one occasion for that. Then, we could add a clause for pragmatists, because there are a few charges on my credit card that were a direct result of that part of my identity. Maybe I can get some government assistance.

All kidding aside, it’s absolutely wonderful the strides humanity has taken to recognize and acknowledge diversity in the last 100 years or so—from universal suffrage to civil rights. However, there are still large strides to be made. And that’s because we have yet to understand—on a large scale—how there are fundamental differences between people --> that are less documented/debated/recognized. Furthermore, many of us don’t even realize how we are different outside of the obvious.

For example, it occurred to me a while ago, when I was reading through the Deciding & Achieving framework, that these different approaches to making decisions might be the root of a significant amount of interpersonal conflict.

Allow me to illustrate. People simply don’t realize that they make decisions in a way that is different from others. And if they are confronted with a different method of decision making, they often simply think it’s stupid and wrong.

It’s intolerance! There ought to be a law…

 I’m a pragmatic decision maker, personally. It’s served me in many ways, but it’s also a huge liability. Thank goodness for my rationalist wife, or I’d probably be broke 90% of the time. I was before we met, actually. But it’s pretty good that I realize that, because I’d probably go through life thinking she never has any fun, except when she’s planned for it months ahead of time. Is that really even fun? To her it is. She thinks I’m whimsical, flighty, which I am.

 It goes much further. There are differences in the way in which people interact with others, work life, and society in general. To some, family trumps literally everything else in life. Others prefer work and making money. Still others just want to feel important.

 The point is: society marches forward. We keep pushing against intolerance and misunderstanding. Through it all, we hope to create a world where someone’s identity isn’t automatically a barrier to achievement, success and happiness. Let’s keep it going; let’s not get comfortable! Let’s consider every aspect of identity and raise awareness. When we’re aware of our differences, I mean those deeper differences that really  matter as we create our lives and communities of our differences—we can look forward to a world fit for people.