I freely admit that I love to dominate challenges, be strong, and get things done.  

The reason I strive to keep it from outwardly showing is that in my experience, the most dominant, strong, and accomplished people are also the most humble; they’re the first ones to admit they’ve screwed up, the first ones to figure out why, and the first ones to DO something about it.

People who are willing to admit that they’re wrong (or that they don’t know) have my interest.  

People who demonstrate that they’re willing to do something about it have my respect.

It seems that the [comfort/convenience/pleasure/lack of guilt/rush of righteousness] associated with a dysfunctional premise often distracts people from embracing the temporary pain of a functional strategy.

 

“I don’t know what the truth is.  Let me look at the evidence, formulate a strategy, and give it a shot.”  

That’s a way of being that fosters humility, effectiveness, and cuts through dogma.  From my perspective, it also embodies a deeper truth, for not only does it honor the statement “Faith without works is dead,” it also preserves the mystic’s idea of a transcendent truth—a truth that must remain nameless and mysterious (in the connotation that’s arguably touched upon by the title “Mystery School”), and can only be reached through action/experience.

The blank page contains the potential for all stories ever and never written.  It is up to the author to use time-honored tools like discipline, critical thought, and unflinching scrutiny to bring out another glorious tale from that deceptively chaotic blankness.

Here is my rough understanding of the word “truth.”  

The Functional Truth applies to daily life; it’s a set of premises/assumptions (derived from personal or external evidence) that allow me to make predictions with a satisfactory rate of positive results, and prosper in the long run.  It does not presume to know the nature of reality, and in my mind, is the most important Truth because it works, and due to its lack of presumption about the underlying nature of reality, aligns with a mystical viewpoint that allows for divinity (if it exists) to maintain its mystery by not presuming to know it, yet flow with external indicators and phenomena (divinity’s clues to me, if divinity exists) through a humble stance on new evidence.  In a nutshell:  “Those who say they don’t know, know.  Those who say they know, don’t know.”

Next is the Scientific Truth, which draws a reliable map of cause and effect that must adhere to acceptable error rates.  When applied properly, this truth will adjust its premises for new evidence (physics is a good example of this, the Seven Countries studies is not).  

Next is the Logical Truth, which draws a reliable map of cause and effect, but does not use statistics, or acceptably established rates of error.  This truth, when applied properly, also demonstrates humility and flexibility, for no given premise is accepted as definitely true, and can only be “validated” through not just sound deduction, but also sound experimentation (induction, roughly).  

Lastly is the Definitive Truth, which dogmatic people purport to know (heaven, reincarnation, enlightenment, god, etc. etc.) but real mystics only hint at.  I believe this is because if there is some grander power that structures the universe, then in order to harmonize with it one must avoid purporting to know it and instead DEMONSTRATE they know it by following the clues that are left before them, and transforming their efforts into desired results that benefit the collective.  That’s why I believe seeking effectiveness within ethical bounds (how I define the Functional Truth) is the simplest, most practically relevant pathway to honoring divinity, if such a thing even exists. 

If not, that’s okay too—I’ve covered my bases (my practical and ethical considerations) by honoring the Functional Truth.  😉

In my experience, calling yourself out on bullshit and addressing a problem is infinitely better than waiting for that bullshit to infect your perception and sabotage every attempt to improve your position.

The truly fascinating stories (that reflect life, I believe) are the ones where the villains can be used to propagate good, and where heroes become villainous despite their best intentions.  To transcend the trap of simplistic dogma, I try to apply the standard of [effectiveness bounded by ethics] to each individual circumstance. 

I am open to working with villains and condemning heroes, and I will give each a chance to serve the greater good…depending on how they choose to act in the moment, and if they choose to rise to the occasion.

While there’s no way to prove it, it seems that certain qualities which a person condemns are often reflective of their own faults.  This seems to be true in life, and it DEFINITELY rings true in story. 

In a fair amount of stories (and I believe in real-life anecdotes as well), if a person integrates their own darkness, that is when they can conquer their opposition in a comprehensive fashion, for they have already conquered their own failings, which they originally—and ironically—once condemned in their hated foes.