Education, Law, and People

Law is only necessary to the degree that education is ineffective. The goal of a civil society is to equip people to govern themselves; self-control is more effective than state-control. But don't get me wrong, I would never advocate the immediate abolition of the legal system. Simply and humbly put, written laws are the awkward mitten-hands that point out the borders between right and wrong. Because human interaction is so complicated and full of nuance, we do not possess effective enough language to define the boundaries for every action that borders on criminal infraction. Definite laws are necessarily only a guide, though hopefully they err on the side of freedom. Like any rigid machine, laws need human intelligence to manage the minute details and produce a quality result.

Human intelligence is developed through education. For our purposes, let us consider education in its two most general forms: science and art. Classically speaking, "science" is any technical knowledge (like facts and figures), while "art" involves a more general understanding of application, especially with regard to people. Law is a science, while self-control is an art.

I think it is fair to say that education involves a transfer of information from a given source to a student's mind. If it is, then I believe it is also fair to think of all informational sources as potential education sources. Many of us think of education as simply the textbooks and lectures of formal schooling. And while that media effectively teaches science, it is by its very nature too rigid to teach art. However, I submit that all media transfers some information, and therefore, also some form of education.

Therein lies an important sub-point: certain media (especially image-based media) passively informs its audience. The goal of advertising media, for example, is to instill a want in the viewer. This is accomplished by "educating" the viewer about a set of circumstances which may not represent the truth. I encourage you to consider the passive education you may be receiving.

The real question here is whether or not our culture is learning (from whatever source) the information necessary for each individual to make effective moral and ethical choices with respect to his or her role in the larger picture. A balance between science and art is necessary for total perspective. The degree to which we are over-educated in science is the degree to which we become culturally inflexible, and the degree to which we are overeducated in art is the degree to which we lack an understanding of absolutes. The rigid use of laws, either to define what we all should accept or to reign in those ideas that are outside what we ought to accept, necessarily limits the freedom of the individual.

To return to the thesis of this article, the ability of the individual to control his own ethics (to find his fit) determines his ability to live in accordance with natural laws of human civilization. The degree to which each person is able to this, is the degree to which law would be rendered unnecessary. It is information about the bigger picture that determines a person's fit, and therefore, his reason to want to live in accordance with natural laws.

It is classic literature that studies these nuances; this information. The philosophers, entrepreneurs, and statesmen that wrote these works, wrote them from the trenches of cultural warfare, not from the comfortable halls of idealistic scholarship. These works represent first-hand experience with the subject matter: people. People--those wonderful, emotional creatures that purposefully defy convention and definition. People--the characters that fill the stages and silver screens of real life. People--the constant flaw in any plan, the exception to every rule, and the enduring force of change and balance on Earth.

For information to flow out of the Consortium and represent first-hand experience, we have to work with people. The process of building the Consortium and inspiring our people to read, discuss, write, and apply will serve as the very process of liberally educating each member of our community. A rising tide raises all ships, and this education process will constantly improve our media output to the point that our momentum will be unstoppable.

What makes a classic is it's level of truth and wisdom. Truth and wisdom govern the individual who understands them. A society of individuals who govern themselves do not need a cumbersome, expensive central bureaucracy. This society will be free.

"The Stranger"

I heard this story read at a convention and had to find it to share. Whatever your personal beliefs, I encourage you to consider what shaped those beliefs or contributed to a lack of belief. It is important that we guard our thoughts regarding truth. Biased information from the right source can, in an instant, make destructive ideas seem attractive through the use of omission and misrepresentation of truth.

No one is right because they say they are right. It is my opinion that free thinking requires a commitment to frequent, if not constant, evaluation of new information and old wisdom. It is imperative that we seek to discover whether our personal constitutions should be amended in light of the new information, or if the new information ought to be discarded.

As in this story, many families use the Holy Bible as their moral compass, though there are libraries of classical literature that contain the same principles of wisdom. Maybe you don't believe in the Bible, but decide what you believe and be mindful of that which goes against it.

A few months before I was born, my dad met a stranger who was new to our small Tennessee town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer, and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to welcome me into the world a few months later.

As I grew up I never questioned his place in our family. In my young mind, each member had a special niche. My brother, Bill, five years my senior, was my example. Fran, my younger sister, gave me an opportunity to play 'big brother' and develop the art of teasing. My parents were complementary instructors-- Mom taught me to love the word of God, and Dad taught me to obey it.

But the stranger was our storyteller. He could weave the most fascinating tales. Adventures, mysteries and comedies were daily conversations. He could hold our whole family spell-bound for hours each evening.

If I wanted to know about politics, history, or science, he knew it all. He knew about the past, understood the present, and seemingly could predict the future. The pictures he could draw were so life like that I would often laugh or cry as I watched.

He was like a friend to the whole family. He took Dad, Bill and me to our first major league baseball game. He was always encouraging us to see the movies and he even made arrangements to introduce us to several movie stars. My brother and I were deeply impressed by John Wayne in particular.

The stranger was an incessant talker. Dad didn't seem to mind, but sometimes Mom would quietly get up-- while the rest of us were enthralled with one of his stories of faraway places-- go to her room, read her Bible and pray. I wonder now if she ever prayed that the stranger would leave.

You see, my dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions. But this stranger never felt obligation to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our house-- not from us, from our friends, or adults. Our longtime visitor, however, used occasional four letter words that burned my ears and made Dad squirm. To my knowledge the stranger was never confronted. My dad was a teetotaler who didn't permit alcohol in his home - not even for cooking. But the stranger felt like we needed exposure and enlightened us to other ways of life. He offered us beer and other alcoholic beverages often.

He made cigarettes look tasty, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished. He talked freely (probably too much too freely) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing. I know now that my early concepts of the man-woman relationship were influenced by the stranger.

As I look back, I believe it was the grace of God that the stranger did not influence us more. Time after time he opposed the values of my parents. Yet he was seldom rebuked and never asked to leave.

More than thirty years have passed since the stranger moved in with the young family on Morningside Drive. He is not nearly so intriguing to my Dad as he was in those early years. But if I were to walk into my parents' den today, you would still see him sitting over in a corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures.

His name? We always just called him TV.

Told by Keith Currie

Read, Discuss, Write, Apply

Normally, I prefer waiting to recommend something until after I've finished it, but the book I am currently reading, A Thomas Jefferson Education by Oliver DeMille is astounding. DeMille is a co-founder of George Wythe Univerity, a liberal arts university, whose curriculum is centered on the Great Books of Western Civilization.

In his book, DeMille speaks highly of self-education using classic books, from The Bible and other religious texts, to works by authors as diverse as John Locke and George Orwell. He recommends the often difficult, but rather simple approach of reading, discussion, writing, and application. He argues that a student's desire to learn can be cultivated through the student's own freedom to study according to his interests. And that it is the job of the mentor (teacher) to guide the student to the lessons found in the classics he has chosen.

He speaks out against forced "conveyor belt" forms of education, where conformity is the number one priority. In these settings, a student is only taught that learning is work. He therefore finds, that he can get by on the bare minimums. I was personally moved by this, because DeMille's observations of the public school system and its effect on students might as well have been an observation of my own school career. Never before have I understood so clearly why I hated going to school. I used to say that I hated learning, and even that I had nothing else to learn. And while I had my fill of technical knowledge, it was not the learning, but the method and socialization of school that I despised.

At CTIF, we want to emulate this simple approach. As George Wythe did in his mentorship of Thomas Jefferson, we want to use classics (both books and movies) and the "media of the day" (Television, Movies, Internet, etc.) to shed light on the truth contained therein. I believe that if we create an environment of freedom and discussion, not only will we find Truth in Fiction, but we will enable and DRIVE the creation of Truth in Fiction.

It is my humble opinion that the degree to which classic education exists in people's lives is the degree to which law is redundant. If people understand the truth about human nature, they are naturally inclined to govern themselves. More than ever before, the world needs truth and the world needs leaders to mentor people with the truth. It has been said that all men are philosophers. It has also been said that there are no atheists in a fox-hole. The men and women of America need to be woken up from the sleepy haze of mass media entertainment to the realization that what we thought was secure is not, and that the free world has come under attack by slippery politicians (on both sides of the aisle) that are promising to solve the problem if we'll just give them MORE power over us.

I beg you, dear reader, to READ the classics, to DISCUSS the lessons they contain, to WRITE about the truth you find, and to APPLY what you have learned to make a difference in your life, your family's life, and in the future of your country.

Whatever faith you may follow, let goodness triumph, and let GOD BLESS AMERICA!

On Hypocrisy

I recently read an article, which started a train of thought about the concept of hypocrisy.  At one point in the article, which was a response to a video post, the author argued that the man in the video was a hypocrite.  Without going into detail about the content of the video, I'll just say that I found myself in agreement with the video prior to reading the response article.  In effect, I believed the video to be telling the truth.

So my question is: how relevant is it that the man in the video is a hypocrite?  If he is speaking the truth, does it matter if in another time and place he had done the opposite of the truth?

Let me pose this another way.  Imagine a man in prison, who is a convicted murderer.  He tells someone that the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill."  First, is he a hypocrite?  Not necessarily, since the very fact that he is in prison suggests the possibility that he has changed his ways.  However, his past misdeeds clearly show that his is capable of not doing what he advises.

Let us assume that the situation is such that this man clearly has no intention of following the biblical advice.  The question I encourage you to consider is: what's the point of calling this man a hypocrite?  Often, I feel, people use the concept of hypocrisy as justification for ignoring the truth.  Certainly a healthy level of skepticism should be applied when taking advice or learning something new, and the character of the source of that information is a factor to consider.  However, truth is truth no matter who states it, and to disregard truth, even from the mouth of a tyrant is, in my humble opinion, lazy thinking.

I'll admit to being human right here.  I say what I say at the risk of being a hypocrite myself.  Do I ever get tired and subsequently have lazy thoughts?  Do I seek a quick answer from someone I trust, without fully analyzing it?  Of course I do.  But knowing one's weakness is the first step toward fixing it.  I urge you, dear reader, to daily remember to look beneath generalized terms like "hypocrisy" to truly understand.

On Socialism and American Culture

The true war in our day is the Media War.  Commercial interests in media have destroyed the wisdom of our stories. Self-interest has become selfishness because everyone is feeding off everyone else.  The immediate solution on most people's minds is really a part-time socialism.

No one said socialists are bad. In my understanding, socialists are trying to do good, they have a really great IDEA, but are merely short-sighted. Socialism doesn't work. It didn't work out for North Korea, the USSR, Germany, etc. And here's why: people are inherently self-interested. If we weren't, we would not eat or sleep.

However, in any instance of a third-party taking resources from the producers to give to the consumers, there is no incentive for the consumers to learn how to be producers or the producers to continue to be producers. Therefore, everyone consumes, but no one produces. Then the third-party has to FORCE the unskilled consumers to produce. A little bit of poison, merely kills the body more slowly.

In the free market system the United States used to create everything we now take for granted, business was about helping people... it was service.  Those who had the dream and ambition to serve above and beyond were allowed to keep the profits, much of which was re-invested in the business.  To accomplish this, a person had to learn godlike altruism, self-discipline, and long term thinking.  Their efforts created opportunity for those who were a little less ambitious, and the process repeated until everyone had opportunity.

Now, I imagine you'll ask about slaves... I agree, that was a flaw.  Consider this perspective: a slave was given housing, food, clothing, and even medical services by their masters, at their masters' discretion.  So their quality of life, and therefore happiness, was determined by the character of their master, rather than by their own work ethic.  The same is true of employees and their bosses, the difference is we determine how to spend our meager pay, but what we do with our time is controlled by someone else.  Still sounds like slavery to me.

Socialism ultimately robs the incentive from those who serve above and beyond and gives it to those who have not learned to do that yet.  As a result, we have high-level executives who are ignorant of the fact that every business is a people business, and who abuse their power to rob from the working man.

The working man then feels oppressed and is less productive.  If he is awarded money by the government, it does not change the relationship with his employer.  Therefore, the employer is squeezed from both sides (losing money to the government and productivity of his workers) until his business fails, and the working man is unemployed.

This is because we no longer teach integrity in business and we no longer have the opportunity for those executives to learn from their failures that people don't like that.  Massive organizations that do not give people ownership, do not give people responsibility.  True freedom built this country, true freedom will RE-build this country.

Attitude and the Lower Class

Since Truth in Fiction is a cultural movement, I feel it is important to share culturally relevant information. I believe wisdom is the understanding of connections, especially emotional connections between people. Often emotional involvement in seemingly minor events can significantly alter the results of a logically thought out plan. Emotional baggage is the invisible monster of man-vs.-himself, and is the unseen killer of progress.

A while back, I listened to a talk by Robert L. Dickie, Senior Pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Grand Blanc, MI. In the talk, he shares a quotation by an economist who asserts that the difference between "upper class" people and "lower class" people is simply attitude. I was intrigued by this perspective, and eagerly listened to what he had to say.

"The lower class individual, no matter what his race or color, lives from moment to moment. If he has any awareness of a future, it is something fixed, fated, beyond his control. Things happen to him, he does not make them happen. Impulse governs his behavior, because he cannot discipline himself to sacrifice a present satisfaction for a future satisfaction. He has no sense of the future. Whatever he cannot use immediately, he considers without value.

"His bodily needs, especially for action and pleasure take precedence over anything else, and certainly over any work routine. He works only as he must to stay alive. He drifts from one unskilled job to another, taking to interest in his work. Although his income is usually much lower than that of the working-class individual, the market value of his car, television, household appliances, and playthings is many times considerably more. He is careless with his things, however, and even when they are nearly new, are almost permanently out of order for lack of minor repairs.

"The lower class individual has a poor self image. He suffers from a feeling of self-contempt and inadequacy. He's often apathetic and dejected. In his relations with others, he is suspicious, many times hostile, aggressive, but he's always dependent. He's unable to sustain a stable relationship with a mate. Commonly, he does not marry. He feels no attachment to community, neighbors, or friends. He has companions, not friends. He resents all authority (for example, that of the policemen, social workers, teachers, landlords, and employers), and is apt to think he has been railroaded and want to get even. He is a non-participant. He belongs to no voluntary organizations. He has no political interest, and usually does not vote.

"So long as any city or nation has a sizable lower class, nothing basic can be done about it's most serious problems. Good jobs can be offered to all, but some will remain chronically unemployed. Slums can be demolished, but if the housing that replaces them is occupied by lower-class individuals, it will surely be turned into new slums. Welfare payments can be doubled or tripled and a negative income tax instituted, but some persons will continue to live in squaller and misery. The only thing that will bring people out of that kind of bondage and despair is a new attitude, education, [and] maybe religious regeneration."

LOST and Found

I recently read an article by Mortimer Adler entitled "Education for All." This article made clear for me something that I had long had a sense of, but was unable to articulate. The vision of Truth in Fiction is essentially to "sophisticate" people to the principles and concepts of the classics, but to start them at a level accessible to the average American (i.e.: movies and television). Team, the community building system that CTIF is plugged into runs parallel to these efforts with easy-to-read non-fiction paired with audio learning in the form of expository storytelling. That is why the Team system is an invaluable asset to us as we seek to build our consortium. Our writers and creators need to be well-versed in classical learning for this idea to gain traction.

One of the reasons that I'm so excited about this article is that it confirms my belief in the importance of ABC's "LOST." If there's a shining ray of hope for television it's "LOST." I'll cut right to the point: the Executive Producers, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse are avid readers. Though, not everything they've cited as influential to this story is a classic, there certainly is a wealth of philosophy embodied in the show. In fact, as an ode to their scholarship, they've even named key characters after philosophers: John Locke, a man who feels he's found his purpose on the Island, named for the English philosopher and originator of Natural Law theory; Jeremy Bentham, an alias, named for the father of Utilitarianism; and Edmund Burke, named for the founder of modern conservatism. Also referenced in names are Jean-Jaques Rousseau, David Hume, Jane Austen, C.S. Lewis, Michael Faraday, and Stephen Hawking.

Told in a non-linear fashion with flashbacks, the show is about the survivors of a plane crash on a mysterious island, their lives leading up to the crash, and the tangled web of relationships between them. The integrity of the story is dependent upon the viewer watching every episode in order, as it's more like a long movie than a TV series. But, you can easily find a promotional synopsis for that info. What's difficult to market to the masses is that it has a character-driven story, rather than a plot-driven story, and that it deals with such subject matter as leadership, destiny, fate, faith, and the conflict between science and faith. While it is not genre-fiction, LOST plays heavily upon themes of pseudo-science (or lite SCI FI) and mystery to tell its stories.

The show's producer, J.J. Abrams is quoted as saying, "Mystery is the catalyst for imagination." A story that evokes the viewer's imagination, set in a universe where nearly anything is possible, creates a platform for discussion. Pair that with a firm knowledge of truth through classic literature, and you have a POWERFUL, important body of contemporary fiction. I think it's fitting to consider Einstein's quote, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." The viewer needn't know the truth to become a fan, but through watching, his curiosity and imagination will lead him to the truth in the story, and I believe, foster a hunger for more. So do the show's producers, apparently, as they have made available for the show's uberfans (such as I am) a LOST reading list, which suggests further READING.

The most amazing thing about the show, and the reason it ties so well into what I see happening with networking and independent film in the future, is that my wife and I actually felt compelled to aggressively share this experience with people. We grew a small following, and had weekly get-togethers to watch and DISCUSS the show. And it's not just us. Across the world, the same thing is happening organically. Imagine that! Television that actually encourages networking, discussion, and THINKING! I'm convinced it's because the writers are avid readers.

After I finished my first film (which wasn't important or literary), I was armed with the belief that ANYONE could make a film by simply using what is already available and some creativity. I still believe that today, however, when I got into college (to pursue my liberal education) I found I no longer had the time to write, much less produce, another film. As you can imagine, this caused some distress: how was education supposed to help me make films, if it was able to do it before, but unable during and after college.

I was aware that networking was imperative to making films independently. Even when I found enthusiastic people, I also found they had little time outside work and school. I was sure that if we could just make a film, a grass-roots effort could make us all money. I knew a little about the concept of network marketing, and had the thought that it would be great if we could get paid for the promotional work we were doing for LOST naturally! It was at that time, that I had gotten involved in Team's community building system, and saw its potential. Then along came MonaVie, a company which is dominating the wellness industry with it's healthy acai blend beverage. Team's community building efforts plugged into MonaVie's network marketing plan, and proved that a great product would spread like wildfire if the customers (or fans) were allowed to earn compensation for the sharing they would naturally do anyway!

I see a connection between quality, literary fiction; endorsing a great product like MonaVie; and the natural formation of communities around both products that will INCREASE our national economy AND national intelligence quotient. The reality is that this is the Information Age way to operate the media, rather than government's subsidization of business failures and advertising's subsidization of entertainment failures. I think a consortium of leaders as passionate as I am about this, can duplicate these profound results.

Let us change the future.