Interpreting Researched Information –
Several years ago I had been reading about the British march the morning after Paul Revere’s midnight ride. While British soldiers were in retreat, American militia continued shooting. This caught the British by surprise and offended their view of “war conduct”, specifically not to fire on soldiers in retreat. In reflecting with my father, he said, “Americans didn’t much care for British ‘conduct’ in war.” I never thought much about it, nor have I had a reason to. But a thought hit me randomly just recently: It wasn’t that Americans had a different set of values about firing on an army in retreat; they didn’t see the British as being in “retreat”, but “relocating”. Ultimately, we didn’t chase the British back to England, only from our own shores. The Americans had the same values. The difference was their “view” or “vision”.
This seemed an interesting idea as it occurred to me, but I was far more interested in a later realization as I continued to ponder: The British were thinking in terms of that isolated campaign, the Americans wanted them out of the country because they knew the British wanted to launch such campaigns in the future. The American view was more of the “big picture”.
The history book where I read about this story mentioned nothing of “relocating v retreating”, nor anything of “vision” or “big picture”. These types of observations are not often part of the initial observations made by historians or even eye witnesses to the actual events. The responses and interpretations given by most people carry a heavy dose of truth, but they are rarely articulated in a way that may contribute to significant and highly-impacting understanding. Our first impressions are often seen as either “true” or “false”. Instead, I prefer to use the term “incomplete”.
Incomplete impressions of events are EXTREMELY common. When we share our first impressions we can easily find disagreement. One guy may have half of the picture, another guy the other half, neither one is identical. They think it’s a disagreement. Then, “moderate-politician” types of thinkers enter the scene and try to resolve that conflict through “compromise”. They take the two separate pieces from the disagreement and try to synthesize them, creating a “Frankenstein” composite of the two. If we were to compare these different perspectives to different pieces of a puzzle, moderate politician types might look for similar trends in colors or shapes. One piece, out of three, may have radically different colors, so they think it should be thrown-out or, perhaps, placed in a second “Frankenstein”. In some cases, perhaps it should be, my point is that “moderate-politician” types prefer to “always” throw-out what their methods can’t address. “Moderate-politician” types often rise in society, slightly above average, because they demonstrate knowledge of different people’s perspectives and get people to stop arguing for an amount of time. Their accomplishment is, in Jim Collins’ terms, “goodness” rather than “greatness”.
In the context of boards and organizations, one might easily have an impression of my little American history “daydream-epiphany Jesse thought” and think that it was about “vision” and “leadership” and “why we Americans won the Revolution”. Those things, however, are the actual observation—the “vision” concept is a coincidence. The way my “daydream-epiphany” relates to a board is in the nature of the “light bulb” moment itself. Arriving at the idea about the American-vs-British perspectives is not one “incomplete impression” winning over another incomplete impression, nor is it a “moderate-politician Frankenstein compromise”. It was a thought-through impression that eventually developed a quality of “completeness”. It may not even piece together the full puzzle, but it certainly involved realizing that the pieces complemented each other and needed to be put together to reveal a design other than the edges of the pieces themselves.
These “epiphany light bulb” ideas are part of what we appreciate Malcolm Gladwell for. Jim Collins would work with his research team as they drowned themselves in data until that light bulb would switch on—creating the theme for another chapter in their book. Freakonomics is a similar collection and there are many other examples of such interpretations of life which we often enjoy discussing.
This process of the light bulb switching on is itself something I have been learning about these past few months. Most everyone has experienced a light bulb moment in the middle of their days, but I have been evaluating that process more and more. It closely relates to visioning. What contributes to that moment? Is it mere time? Is it education? Is it experience? Is it meaningful reflection with wise people? I believe it is all of the above, plus, light bulbs will always relate to the talent of the person experiencing them switch on. To think about stuff we need stuff to think about and to know how to think about it. For Collins, it’s organization. For Mozart it was symphonies. For Gladwell it’s any random thing.
Here is one quote from an email I sent to a young man who was trying to use a “moderate-politician” paradigm and kept talking about “betweeness” and “middle ground”.
_______________________________
You have a good point with the “between” concept, but this is another key in reconciliation and effective board operation. “Between” is actually a reference to gray being the expression of black and white. What we want isn’t even color, but, as God’s Church, 3-D! White must be separated, and after the new color spectrum is introduced, movie makers actually take a picture and make two, one without blue, the other without red, for instance, and lay them on top of each other, separated. A symbolic application would be your perspective “lacks” red and mine “lacks” blue.. with the right lens, our “lackings” produce 3-D. This is “synergy”, 1+1=5. A baby, cut in half, isn’t two halves of a baby, it’s a dead baby. Together, a baby is more than two dead halves. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is ANYTHING but “between”. That’s an example of the vocabulary distinctions that I think “upgrade” rather than “disagree”. True Bible interpretation offers this color-spectrum, but doesn’t stop there, it goes all the way to 3-D through “lacking” skills and perspectives and needing each other for the purpose of triangulating. It’s why we all have two eyes: depth perception.
_______________________________
To add more to the 3-D concept, in creating a still image (picture as opposed to movie) in 3-D, the photographer actually takes two pictures of the same scene, but from two positions about three to five inches apart from each other. One of those images he then “takes out the red” and in the other he “takes out the blue”. Your eyes naturally see the blur and want to put the blue from one region in place with the red from the other to complement what is “lacking” in each region. Human eyes are designed to do this automatically. Not all animals triangulate their eyes for depth perception, take horses and birds, for instance, that have a 360º range of vision. But, for humans, triangulation and reconciling of differences of perspective is a matter of “depth perception” and that is how the Image of God has “vision” and “foresight”.
The problem with “moderate-politician” types is that their entire paradigm is in gray spectrum, in other words they ARE “black and white TV screens”. When they try to view a 3-D movie, their conclusion is that the movie is blurry. They try to be nice and understanding, offering tips of advice to the film makers, trying not to offend the producer in suggesting that they get the focus a little better in their next film. They lack the spectrum range to “see” the true value of the image and they don’t even realize it. For a “moderate-politician” type, the fact that they can’t see in color doesn’t merely mean that they can’t see colors; it means that they see “blur” instead of “3-D”.
The dirty little secret about Independent voting is that Independents aren’t moderates. It is true that moderate politicians get more Independent voters than wimpy Republicans and Democrats can get, but Reagan got the Independents AND even some Democrat voters because he sees in color and knows when to put on the 3-D glasses. He, like those glasses, helps to interpret the image for the people so that they can have “vision” and “depth perception”. For any organization, the mission statement is merely an extension of the visionary-leader of that organization—much like Rush Limbaugh’s radio program is an extension of Rush Limbaugh. That mission statement and the company “policy” is the “monthly column” that the organization understands the visionary’s mind through. People rise up and great things happen when a “vision with teeth” is made decipherable through the proper lens.
In contemporary methodology concerning interpretation of research and market feedback, the operative paradigm is often to “synthesize” the various forms of feedback. This itself is yet another “Frankenstein-beetweenness-middle-ground” approach and misses the target. Our aim ought not be to “synthesize” different pieces of market feedback, but to triangulate them. In the case of dots, two points make a line; however, in the case of eyes, two points of perspective form a triangle against the object being perceived. “Synthesizing” research interpretation methodology turns those two “perspective points of view” into a line rather than triangulating them into a basis for 3-D viewing. In order to accurately interpret what those points of perspective are viewing, the research interpreter must be well-versed, having a good history, with understanding MANY points of view on subjects he understands as well as having a thorough understanding of what those points of view are triangulated against. To understand feedback on computers, for instance, the research interpreter must have thousands of hours of experience and reflection on, collectively and with quality, all of: 1. helping people resolve conflicts between each other, 2. computers, 3. review of others’ breakthroughs for interpreting history and feedback, 4. the PURPOSE which those giving feedback want to use the computers FOR, such as artwork, and 5. having tried to use computers for that same purpose, or similar purposes, himself. This may be part of how studying Art helped Steve Jobs develop a company for customers that made computers useful for Fine Arts.
Policy Governance –
One of the more brilliant, all time examples of “policy governance” is, without saying, The US Constitution. One aspect caught my attention, recently, in an effort to explain some of the “Poetic Magic” of wide-scale policy crafting. I’m coming to believe that this is an explanation that may have no abstract terms to define it. With most concepts, a dictionary will make good use of synonyms to explain the meaning of a given word. “Policy governance at the crafting level” has no such synonyms. When policy governance is explained, we often look at examples and cite-in on virtuous aspects of those examples or abstract ideas closely related, and, in this much, we still miss the actual concept, despite our most diligent and noble effort to understand. I have come to believe, that this definition of “policy governance”, specifically at the “crafting” skill level, is something that may be able to be understood by many leaders of various kinds, however, it may only be able to be “explained” by someone with an in-borne gifting. My hypothesis, after carefully gathering and analyzing data, is that such people who can explain “policy governance” to others are 1. “borne about once in a generation”, not numerically, but poetically speaking, and 2. must wait until about the age of 30 years old before that in-borne ability comes to fruition and becomes functional for working with others. The reason for this age of “30″ comes from situations with a number of people, and particularly, the lives of Joseph and Jesus. Both of them, at the time when their “public impact” began, were 30 years old and, until then, had lives, mostly, of solitude, which society would have regarded as having “little or no progress”. For that “personality” type (for lack of better terms), their time of solitude involved opportunity for maturation of their various skills, development of their “brain chemistry” into full adulthood, and plenty of time to give heavy introspective reflection upon their seemingly-insignificant life circumstances. Other examples may be Abraham Lincoln, King David, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, all of whom came from the least-likely backgrounds, but had a noticeable “gifting” from childhood and didn’t have their final successes, like Joseph, until after small successes and large, drawn-out periods of failure. I, myself, am of the age of 30 at the time I write this. Therefore, though I feel something stirring in my heart that may come to fruition soon, at best, this theory can only be regarded as a hypothesis, and not an actual thesis, where my own life is concerned, along with any relevant connection to the theory itself.
Early in his life, Joseph significantly offended his brothers. Arguably, it was due to a lack of tact. He “outshined” those around him to such a point where his father was willing to look almost foolish in giving his son such a “coat of many colors” that would inevitably insight jealousy from his brothers. His father was so overcome by his special love for Joseph—for something only a father might see in a young man—that the anticipated objection of his other sons was eclipsed by his infatuation with Joseph. Joseph’s sharing of his dreams could have been regarded as a similar level of tactlessness. Did his brothers think he was fabricating the dreams, that they would one day bow to him? Did they think it was real, but were so angered because he did not “keep it to himself”? Were his brothers using any form of logical reason whatsoever or was their jealousy an “animal-instinct-like” reaction to Joseph’s embryonic state of his unique gifting? Regardless of the answers to these questions, it may often be claimed, and often has been claimed, that Joseph needed to “learn tact” before he could be ready for the high position of “Acting Pharaoh”. However, this is not a sufficient interpretation of Joseph’s life. “Learning to not do things rudely” wasn’t Joseph’s issue so much as his particular gifting—as we all have unique gifting—specifically required high levels of life-pain and introspective reflection, largely in solitude, before that gifting could function properly. Joseph didn’t need repentance, he needed time. Surely there were sin issues in Joseph’s life and he likely needed to apologize to many people for various things, but his youthful behavior of “outshining-tactlessness” was not among them. Some liked it, others hated it. He had unexplainable friends and unexplainable enemies—unexplainable successes and unexplainable failures. Why else would Potiphar elevate a slave to manage his entire house, Potiphar’s wife be so willing to have such a good manager thrown in prison on false charges, then the jailer put that prisoner in charge of managing the prison? Why would Pharaoh make a slave-prisoner, with an unacquitted accusation, acting ruler of all the land? This all relates to Joseph’s rare talent set. It isn’t especially wonderful, nor is it “better” than others. Rather, this explanation merely helps us understand Joseph’s life a little more accurately than a “first impression” may offer. Something unexplainable about Joseph stood out in those situations. Words could not be assembled to describe it. We only know those situations in their uniqueness by retelling their example. Ultimately, Joseph went from literal bottom to literal top of society through having given but one explanation to Pharaoh: seven years, ten percent, seven years. “Five-ten-seven” may have meant not having enough grain in later years, as may have “seven-five-seven”. The percentage of “ten” was something Joseph crafted on his own. Had it been “seven-twenty-seven”, some level of shortage may have emerged within Egypt itself. Both Joseph and Pharaoh knew, without a committee meeting or brainstorming session or research data, that “ten” was the figure for the percentage of grain to store in the first seven years of abundance. Joseph gave the numbers and Pharaoh “recognized” them as proper, much like King Nebuchadnezzar “recognized” that Daniel had given the correct interpretation of his dream, though the king had not been able to develop that interpretation himself. The explanation solved the mystery. They each gave interpretation to vision. Joseph’s numbers were the right numbers for the right situation for the right time. Joseph’s gift was knowing what those numbers were. Pharaoh, having the vision, was able to recognize them as being so valuable. That simple “governance policy” that Joseph crafted for the nation explained, without words, a concept that Pharaoh understood loud and clear: Joseph should be the one to make it all happen.
Promoting himself wasn’t necessarily Joseph’s intention, though he certainly didn’t object. Lincoln did try to run for office, thus “recommending himself” while Gates and Jobs mainly told the people in their own companies, rather than the world, about their anticipated successes. Joseph’s promotion wasn’t related to whether he suggested that he be made Acting Pharaoh or not. The key with Joseph was that “seven, ten, seven” had an impact on Pharaoh’s mind. It spoke to Pharaoh. That sequence had relevance that was far reaching in its effect and initiated Pharaoh’s heart to create a new executive management position without further consultation. Somehow, seven-ten-seven translated to Pharaoh as, “pronounce Joseph as Acting Pharaoh”. This, of course, was because of context and how those numbers applied. But, “Why?” is the question. This is the very art of crafting “great-transformational governance policy”. Egypt rose to such power in the earth as a result of that number sequence discussed in the highest halls of that nation, it almost seems supernatural and unpredictable. Why those numbers mattered can’t be explained. Sure, we can say, “Seven was from the dream,” but that doesn’t explain “why” that simple sequence had such an effect. “Saving ten percent for the bountiful years of harvest would make sense,” we might say, but that is a mere summarizing of the events, it doesn’t explain the function behind them. It wasn’t Joseph’s tactfulness, nor his style. It wasn’t that he bowed properly to the King. It was the policy of seven-ten-seven, applied to years and amounts, which affected Pharaoh’s choices, and without any sales skill or closing technique.
Years later, after Joseph’s father had passed, his brothers still could not understand the “policy crafting” skill of Joseph’s mind. Those closest to him still thought, after all his generosity, that he would have them killed with the passing of their father. Any other family may have been able to understand that they had been forgiven. Somehow, Joseph was always “a little misunderstood” by those close to him. His response, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good,” was, itself, a well-crafted “governance policy system”. In that case, it was more of an interpretation than an implementation, but the same crafting eye that came up with seven-ten-seven to apply Pharaoh’s dream to Egypt’s situation saw this. The poetry of what Joseph told his brothers, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good,” is also easily overlooked, even with our most diligent and admirable reflection. Yes, it tells of forgiveness and God’s sovereignty, but why? The statement, “You meant it for evil,” doesn’t have the word “evil” as the primary observation, but the verb “meant”. Joseph’s brothers may have thought that they were “doing” evil, but that would require an accomplishment. Joseph’s “big picture” leader lens of vision saw the end, perhaps something in the vicinity of, “All is well that ends well.” In the first clause, “You meant it for evil,” Joseph is explaining that they did not successfully “do” or “accomplish” evil, it was only their intention. The more important clause, however, gets the last word, implying that there is something more than the “intent” of his brothers. “…but God meant it for good.” This, being the weightier, does contain two important messages, not just one. There is the verb, “meant” as well as the abstract noun, “good”. Joseph is helping his brothers to re-interpret all that has happened as being “good”. We can say it should be obvious to them, but their brother is one whom they have great difficulty understanding. Living off of the fat of the new, wealthiest nation in the region is something they couldn’t explain. Why would Joseph bring them to this lifestyle when they had treated him so? They had no lens to help them interpret the situation. Joseph helps them make that interpretation, not through explaining his lens, but by simply showing them what is revealed in there situation: “good”. A lens is clear and hard to understand without looking through it. The magnification factor of a lens is described by the amount which it magnifies the image shown through it, not the thickness or shape of the lens itself. The other point Joseph made in his second clause was that God “meant” the events as they were. Joseph’s bondage had a purpose. The self-inflicted “outshining tactlessness” of Joseph’s younger years was a self-effecting device of his “personality makeup” that instigated those in his life to put him in a place where his particular talent set would have the necessary solitude to germinate until he was, in Joseph’s case, 30 years old. God didn’t “salvage” the early events of Joseph’s life, nor did Joseph “intend/mean for” them, rather, “God meant” for them to happen—and He meant it for “good”. That interpretation provided the necessary “life interpretation policy” for his brothers to get past there past and those words were instantly crafted in the conversation by the same man who helped Egypt rise to great power, while saving his family in the process, through the simple sequence of seven-ten-seven.
In regards to my earlier comment about The US Constitution, the Bill of Rights was of particular interest. Not only was The Bill of Rights the first of the Amendments made to The US Constitution, it was both “close” (in immediate proximity) to the original framework as well as “separate” from it. It was the first, and arguably, most significant “afterthought” with regard to the original Constitution itself. But why has it had such an impact? I believe, it is because those first ten Amendments were voted on and ratified together as one collection.
This “grouping” of items is remarkably significant. Each of the rights defined in those Amendments are rarely referenced as “Bill of Rights Article One” or something of the sort. Instead, they are nearly always called, “First Amendment Right” or something of that nature. They are referred to as both “Amendments” and “Rights”. This deeply reflects how the nation perceives those first ten Amendments. Though they were ratified collectively, they were considered separate Amendments. Though they were separate Amendments, they were ratified collectively. Being together, they were also given a common title, “Bill of Rights”, which is only a title references and is not “binding” in a legal sense. There are other Amendments with “rights”, such as Amendment Article XIII (abolishing slavery) or Amendment Article XV (voting and race) or Amendment Article XIX (voting and gender) or Amendment Article XXI (voting age of 18 guaranteed) or Amendment Article XXIV (forbidding voting poll tax). Why are these not so often referred to as “Thirteenth Amendment Right” or something along those lines? Is it because they were not passed with a title over them containing the word “Rights”? We might easily think that this title, “Bill of Rights”, is where the pattern of using the word “Right” in “First Amendment RIGHT” comes from. However, I don’t postulate that the title was the most significant factor as the factor that they first ten were “grouped” together. I’m sure that the title, “Bill of Rights” was a factor in referencing the first ten amendments as rights, but the “stickiness” that caused the label to stick seems to go deeper than the mere title of the collection. Those later Amendments, just listed, are often seen as “humane and should have been assumed anyways”. In society today, no one in his right mind would call “non-slavery” a “right”—rather, anyone thinking “slavery” is an option would be considered out of his mind! So, why isn’t Amendment Article XIII considered a “right” as is the case with the first ten Amendments? I suspect that the word “Right” in reference to the rights defined in the first ten Amendments actually comes from the Declaration of Independence, with reference to, “..certain inalienable rights.” Language of the Bill of Rights and the mentality of Constitutional crafting in that time closely reflected this idea, that the Creator gave us rights and government does not “institute” them, but “recognizes” those rights which already exist. The later rights after the Bill of Rights (previously listed) only updated us to what should have been assumed to begin with. The rights in the Bill of Rights are rights most governments often fail to recognize. They deserved a special place as the “first afterthought” in the framing of The US Constitution because recognizing them is one of the key components that makes the country unique among other nations.
These are part of what, like Egypt’s rise to power, helped America rise to power, and straying from them is what coincided with America falling from its status among other nations of the world. Seeing these ten items as “rights” helped make America who she was best known for. I postulate that they were primarily seen that way, not because of their unofficial label, “Bill of Rights”, but because, they, being in likeness, were “separate, yet grouped” and vocabulary of “certain inalienable rights” from the previously written Declaration of Independence stuck to the collection of first ten amendments like many objects stick to a ball of tar. This group has been often remembered with reference terms that the Declaration of Independence used to define the very concept of “Rights” among the peoples of the earth. Knowing to “separate, yet group” those ten items was a gift that those framing our nation’s founding documents may not have known they were using in their fullest sense. It might have simply been seen as “easier for ratification by States” or “less likely for politicians to eliminate one because it would mean eliminating the other nine”. However, there were effects of that “separated-grouping” that stretched far beyond what many may have anticipated. Americans already knew that they had “Rights” and now they have “sticky terms” with which to express themselves as they exercised those rights.
The ability to calculate such collections as “separate, grouped”—and “seven-ten-seven”, in the case of Joseph—is the “crafting skill” of those who, poetically speaking, come once in a generation, and those effects are rarely able to be understood, let alone explained. To many, those crafted policies still may be seen as nonsense or, better yet, recognized by many for being brilliant without the full understanding of why. Joseph’s brothers didn’t fully understand him, but they knew they were in the prosperous nation of their time. The same goes for many an American who enjoy the liberties that they know work, but they still may not fully grasp all the technical reasons why those liberties last. They don’t need to know why. God sends people who have that ability once in a generation so that those more talented within the actual society can work to make that people group function how it needs to. All Egypt’s people needed was for one man to say to the man at top, “seven-ten-seven,” just as American needed “separated-grouped”. Those who do that, often do so without knowing why, it’s just something that finally “makes sense” after unexplained successes and failures—and it starts showing results in their lives at about the age of 30.
As I mentioned previously, the ability to have a “light bulb” switch on with such things requires proper information to reflect on as well as knowing how to reflect on it. This particular light bulb about the Bill of Rights—which may be improved on by myself or others in the future, of course—came after meditating on, of all things, The US Constitution and it’s Amendments. I had to have the Constitution well in my mind for a “light bulb” about the Constitution to switch on. This partially relates to why God told Joshua, “meditate,” on Scripture, “day and night,” “not depart from your lips,” and things of the sort (Josh 1:8). “Meditation” precedes and causes “light bulb!” From whom did I get the idea to “study the Constitution”? None other than Abraham Lincoln, another one with a life similar to Joseph’s.
Lincoln is largely known for “saving the Union” and, alternately “ending slavery”—as those two are often debated for which deserves more priority, which relates to the “policy crafting” point I am making. A trend in recent historians’ interpretation of Lincoln is that, he recognized that certain devices were in place form the framing of The US Constitution that would inevitably end slavery. Those at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 who wanted to end slavery at that time were in a power struggle against those at the same Convention who would refuse. So, they crafted and put those “subtle governance policies” in place with the intention that such seemingly insignificant policies as “separated-grouped” or “seven-ten-seven”, occasionally called “devices” by contemporaries, would eventually end slavery. They knew that the hearts of the people recognized “certain inalienable rights” and, eventually, tyranny would fail and working, business-owning, free people would blow the whistle on slavery. Lincoln recognized this. Why? Because he knew to, “study the Constitution.” All he did was “preserve the union”, something difficult to argue with, but something that had the far-reaching effect of “actually” ending slavery, not just talking about it, and it happened through a “policy governance” subtlety that could only be crafted by few in a generation, people who were like Joseph.
Up to this point of this article, we have only reviewed and cross-referenced history. I believe a time is coming when we will move forward in our society. Malcolm Gladwell, in “Blink”, describes the “intuition” or “gut feeling” nature, in a manner of words. He explains at one point, how, most people can make decisions instinctively and accurately, so long as they don’t try to put too much vocabulary to their thought process. However, when average, normal, untrained people are asked to identify, say, different flavors of several recipes of sauce, and use vocabulary to explain the different tastes, it’s difficult. But, once a person has been trained in identifying vocabulary for such differences to a point he might be regarded as a “trained professional” or “skilled researcher”, using vocabulary to describe the differences, say, between different flavors of several recipes of sauce, actually increases the quality of their observations. At that point, the “skilled researcher” is able to make recipe flavors that are of higher quality. They don’t always succeed in the business world of sauce, but they are in the position that they stand a reasonable chance. This coincides with a rule Gladwell references in “Outliers”, the ten-thousand hour rule. Usually, for instance, musicians, with a typical practice week all through grade school, high school, and college, hit various stages of ability. At 6,000 hours of practice, they have a good hobby and might play in their local church or community. At about 8,000 hours of practice, they may be a teacher or professor. But there is something, as Gladwell points out, about 10,000 hours where that skill level becomes “world class”. I suspect, that at about age 30, Joseph, Jesus, and Lincoln, all had their 10,000 hours in. That’s why they went from having nearly “no followers” to making a significant impact for those who both loyally followed as well as despised them. There may be many people who can “craft subtle, poetic governance policy” to help others. They may even be able to explain it, perhaps with example, to many other leaders of that day who can implement the “lens” necessary to add such subtlety to their own policy, but I believe we are reaching a point in history where we will wrap our fingers around the “vocabulary” so that we can take “world-class governance policy” and add an ability to “describe” the subtle, poetic crafting skill on a level that is also world-class. When that happens, leaders, factory workers, sole proprietors, managers, soccer moms, law-makers, businessmen, artists, and people in every corner of society will feel a new an unexplainable freedom and inspirational empowerment to perform their tasks on a whole new level. This is part of why I believe we are all reaching a season of breakthrough. Through the power of friendship and consulting, all it takes is any one organization to experience their own transformation in this regard. Then, the many within that organization will be able to “carry the inspirational virus of the governance policy crafting lens” to others. It won’t need to be sold or promoted. It only needs to happen right in the very space in front of us.
As Bob explains, a zoo with a tiger cage that has no tiger is a bad zoo, though it’s certainly “politically correct”. But who wants a politically correct zoo? Like the zoo, humor can’t work with empty tiger cages. The best smiles have teeth and you can’t laugh without both the teeth and the smile. Once you offend no one, you bore everyone. If you entertain most people, you’ll offend most of the rest.
The answer might be connected to gravity…
Bob got my head spinning. And, now, I’m starting to think that, while the Constitution and the Bible reflect different forms of timeless wisdom, most Conservatives and most Christians don’t respect the Bible or the Constitution for their brilliance. Most parents don’t teach their children much about the Constitution at all—to which Ronald Reagan said in his last national address, “…call them out on it.” Conservative Christians respect the Bible because their parents told them to, even though their parents didn’t tell them why. All evidence hath shewn, homosexual Christians became homosexual because their parents told them not to, but nobody in the family knew why.
