Hello, I'm Steve Berman and welcome to front and center from the political battlefields to cooperative playing fields. And before I introduce our guest today, let me bring in my podcast partner, Michael Maxsenti.
Hello, everybody. Hello, Randall. I'm looking forward to our conversation. It was really nice to meet you the other day. And I'm looking forward to seeing where this conversation will take us. So Steve, let's jump in.
Well, in our missions in this and doing this podcast, so as I said, go from political battlefields, to cooperative playing fields, to bring all sides front and center to write our new story together, and to call forth what we're calling a sane and sacred community so that we have the power of loving coherence at the center of our of our society and our world. Well, today's guest, Randall Paul, I believe is going to help us move toward all three of these realizations. I first became acquainted with Randall Paul, a few years ago, when I met his two partners in this book that he's writing we'll talk more about that Jacob has to and osteopenia. And there is an odd couple, they're very close friends. But Arthur characterizes himself as a gay Christian, Marxist, Libertarian, and, and Jacob is a member of the Latter Day Saints Church, and as so they're quite different. And yet, they have found ways to begin to communicate with one another that allows them to keep the belief system that they have and yet be able to listen compassionately, and curiously to the, to what other people are saying so, Randall, has been their third partner in this book that they're writing. And he has developed over the course of his lifetime. Also, as a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, Randall has developed over the course of his lifetime, something he calls religious diplomacy, as a way to hold one's own beliefs. And listen, as I said, with curiosity, and heartfelt connection with an individual who has perhaps completely opposite views. So, Randall, please give us some background? How did you come to this calling, and tell us more about religious diplomacy, and the book that you're working on?
Thank you, by the way, it's going to be great to have this conversation with both you, Steve and Mike to today. So thank you for inviting me. Religious diplomacy, is a term we used to distinguish it clearly from religious dialogue. Most people in dialogue, presume that the goal is mutual understanding. And you often hear this as a footnote to that. We're not trying to persuade anybody to change. We're just here to understand. And I come out of a social psychological background. And one of the fundamental things that a social psychologist knows is humans are always in a mode of persuasion. If it's past the salt, or make me your partner or I'm smart, or whatever it is, we're trying to do. Our motives are always multiple. And we're trying to influence we like the word influence others. That's persuasion, right. In our culture, today, persuasion has gotten a bad word, a bad name, because it's imposed usually, right? We have the feeling that that somehow coercion, that usually it's a persuasive person, as someone who's trying to sell you something that you really don't need, or trying to push you to believe something that you shouldn't believe, always for that person's benefit, right, not for yours. So it's got that very negative connotation to it. The foundation for religious diplomacy understands that diplomats engage in mutual persuasion, that's what their goal is, not just to understand each other, but to create some change that's beneficial primarily to one's own group. But that gives also benefits the other group in order to get the persuasion a mutual situation. Therefore, rather than religious dialogue that often pretends to be innocent of any persuasion. We social psychologically speaking, called it diplomacy, which acknowledges our desire to at least impress other people, that we like them, or at least impress them that we're intelligent people, or that our religion is not all bad, or that there's is it either in other words, we want something more than understanding, we want to change attitudes and opinions. That's what diplomacy is. It owns the fact that we want to create change in all our relationships. And in religion, that's primarily a a very contested idea today, given colonialism of the last couple 100 years, religion was always implicated with business and power, and looking down upon the poor people who are unenlightened that you're going to exploit effectively, right? And so we have a history both in America with the colonists coming and, and disrespecting the American Indians, to the African situation all over the world. It's It was similar. And so we acknowledge that there are differences in power, always in human relationships. And so a good religious diplomacy is breathtakingly candid upfront about explaining what the multiple motives you have for an engagement, first of all, and acknowledging power differentials that are there either because of education,
money, status, race, whatever it is, you throw it all on the table and say, yes, yes, these power differentials all exist. So now we're what are we? So what are we going to do? We're not going to talk because power differentials exist, you know, what kind of a world would we be in? Right? If everybody had to be automatically already equal in all, all, all power, we should never have any kind of conversation at all. So that's why our diplomacy seems edgy to a lot of people. We're in this to bring up the most difficult matters right up front, put them on the table and say, given all these difficulties, can we still have a conversation? Can we still desire to make each other part of each other's lives as trustworthy rivals? As for the critics, right? That's a very interesting idea that we're trying to impregnate many cultures with today, right? That you can actually have a trustworthy rival, someone who is both critical and appreciative of you, your beliefs, your religion, whatever be your your atheism, for that matter. That's the background that was that was a long winded way of talking about diplomacy, as something that aims to sustain peaceful tension between rivals who will remain rivals, because in their integrity, they can do no other. They really do believe they have the highest way, and they can't lie about it. And therefore, they find ways, either evading each other and that's where we are in the world today where we evade any kind of deep part in mind conversation that includes these, these unresolvable issues, or they engage each other in a mutually persuasive. We'd like to call it a collaborative contestation where they engage their differences and try honestly to persuade each other to see things differently.
I would like to interject something here, when you said trustworthy rivals. I really brought to mind immediately, Abraham Lincoln, and the value of what he did by trustworthy rivals. For those who aren't familiar with the story and Goodwin, I forget her name.
Doris Kearns, Doris Kearns Goodwin. Yeah, yeah,
she wrote an amazing book called The Team of Rivals, which is that with told the story of Lincoln and his major rivals to gain a nomination first off of the Republican Party, but then to everyone's chagrin, he made all of his major rivals his major cabinet positions, because he wanted to have the benefit of their diverse thinking and perspectives. He ultimately made the final decisions, but after carefully considering those trustworthy rivals, perspectives, and they did try to persuade him to a degree, but he was strong in his character. And that is such a important way to see a broader perspective on any issue to make the best decisions there. So I just wanted to share that because it's
a great example, Michael, it's a great example. One of my favorite stories is the wisdom, the psychological wisdom of Lincoln, Stanton. And Seward were very strong polar opponents in his cabinet. And
then you had the cutthroat cutting behind this seems guy, the guy from Ohio, I forget his name up top my head, Chase.
But that to be to be blunt about it, Steward and Stanton, hated each other. They, they, they just, it was a real contest. At the visceral level, Lincoln therefore came up with an idea. And he sent out a rumor that Stanton had said, How brilliant Steward was, in what he had come up with, you know, it was just a rumor that baby got out. And of course, he sent out another rumor. That sort of said, how gutsy you know, how courageous Stanton had been in this particular position. And they literally, they came to the next cabinet meeting completely changed in their demeanor? Well, it's one of the most magnificent things we can learn about human beings, if you tell someone face to face a compliment, they think you're, you're flattering them and conning them. But if you hear that he said it to other people outside of your presence. Wow, the guy must really believe it. Right. And, and that gives credibility to it. So I shared that story that Lincoln not only brought the rivals together, but he saw the visceral problems of bringing rivals together and found out ways of, of bringing them to truly listen to each other. And in sometimes did it with what I call what the Buddhist called skillful means. He told lies to take them to a higher level of truth.
Those are the acceptable white lies.
Yeah, higher purpose that they really work are both pretty brilliant, pretty good guys, right? And if they can only just see that, right, and that's one of the great things about contact theory. In sociology, you can't build a trusting relationship without some kind of contact. Now, what is also true is, as Georg Sybil, a famous sociologist said, you know, contact can mean your that together to shoot each other in war, that is just all sorts of ways of doing context of contact, you're just getting to know somebody, just bringing them into the cabinet. In other words, wasn't enough, they had to start listening and caring about each other. And that's a different level. So you start with contact, but then you need to move to some deep motive, that you are convinced the other party respects you, and will listen to you, and then you begin to open up. So our our, our diplomacy is all about bringing people together privately, to show them that they are respectful, and really interesting and quite good people. And that they are, if you will, they see each other afterwards as worthy of attention. worthy of that there are bothersome influence, but a worthy influence in the other person's life. Right? We'd like to say the goal of diplomacy is not tranquil peace. It's peaceful tension. It's sustaining the tension of peace that can exist as rivals and critics both I like to say with stand and stand with each other. Right? That's a I'm taking my my puns there from Steve, he loves that. I withstand you and I stand with you. And if our children could just learn that that's, that's the way the world has to be. It's we're not all going to come to consensus on these massively important issues. So we've got to have this notion, this idea that peace is not calmness, and consensus, it's something else. It's, it's this desire to have someone who will, as you said Michael, will actually enhance your truth by giving you deeper perspectives. This book, we're writing one of the titles we were thinking of going right to the juggler and calling it Seeking the Whole Truth Together, huh? Seeking implies humility that you don't know, truth implies that we're not in a totally relativistic world where all things are equal, that there is non truth, and truth, and there are values that or higher and lower. And the word together means you've got to have a conversation with someone, you can't know the truth by yourself. And when you start expanding that, to having conversations with people who deeply disagree with you, then you're really gaining the whole truth. Right? Now, I'm not saying all people's views are equally true. But ironically, it's true that someone else has a belief, even if it's false. No, it's true. It's part of the truth of the world you're in. And you have to deal with that, rather than pretending that things are the way they are. And they really are. This, I want to get in the conversation with you guys. What do you think of that? I mean, what does this sound like? It's all this ideological, you know, theory, and that can never actually make any difference on the grassroots level in our lives. What do you think about what I just said?
you know, this is actually the condition that we're being faced right now. Because at this moment, we have a totality, what I would call a totalitarian consensus that's being imposed, rather than using the dynamic tension, as Charles Atlas used to call it the dynamic tension between these opposing beliefs, which can actually lead to a more complete truth as you as you had suggested, so I think that because of various conditions in the world, because of our conditioning, to be in our tribes, because of fear, and so on that, and because our, our media tends to reinforce the silos that we're in, we're at a point now, where it's where people somehow are stuck in these two positions, I'm right, and you're wrong. And what you're suggesting is a way up and a way out of all of this. So I'm very, I'm very interested in this dynamic that you're talking about, particularly the idea of rivals that are actually striving for the same things together.
So what I want to share is, is something you said in that title, seeking the whole truth together. The word whole, because so many people say there's only one truth. And this is really hard for people to understand that there are people can stand in their own truth, depending upon their lens, their perspective. That's why they can, they can swear on a stack of Bibles that what they saw was 100% truthful from and be right, somebody else can say something the exact opposite. And it'd be to them the exact same 100% truth from the deepest parts of their heart. So the analogy I like to share with people is a sports analogy to almost all of us can relate to, you're watching your favorite sporting event, I like these baseball. And if you're sitting there on the third base side, and there's a play at second base, and from your perspective, he obviously slid in safe before well before the tag, and the umpire calls him out. And people on the third base side and up above, they're screaming at you. No, no, no, he was saying if they, and then they start showing some of the repeat cameras angles, and the first two, three angles show that he was out. Now you get around to that angle from left field that shows going down the second bass line to the first base. And you see he missed the tag, the guy actually slid away on the right field side. And he never did make the tag even though he had the ball there well in advance. And it had you stopped seeking the truth with only your perspective, you would have never come around to that fifth sometimes I've seen a football game where it was the 10th or 11th you before you saw that missed it. And so that's the the what we need to do is have that curiosity to want to seek the whole truth and never stop being willing to listen to new perspectives so that your truth can continually be expanded and and that you can only do that together. And so I wanted to share that and
beautiful story, Michael beautiful and you ended it from the from the point of view of the foundation for religious policy with just the right words, continual to you continue to see because the whole is never finished. It's never Final. So there's a constant humility along with your conviction, there's a constant humility that there's more, you're not God yet, if you believe in a God who's an all seen being everyone will probably agree that we don't have all sight. Right? We might have, some people believe we get, we can get it, we are tapped into that divinity. But, and even that we might be having mystical experiences more out of our body and out of our, our selfness. But when we come back to talk with each other, we admit no, that that was an experience I had you didn't, right! In other words, even if it wasn't experience of wholeness, I have to express it through my little particular point of views. And so this idea of a dynamic life together on this planet, where you're always having to seek more, allows this to be something where we're not totalizing, Emmanuel Lebanon, wrote a famous book, total totality and infinity. And he said, When you have a view of totality, you're always in danger of becoming a totalitarian power, whether it's religious, or, or scientific, candidly, or, or the nationalism. totality is dangerous, but infinity. That's interesting, because it's always expanding. And so when we think about our lives, I think, especially together, we realize we're not the same people, we had a total life when we were eight years old. But we're not the same people, we were only eight, nor is the guy next door, the gal down the street, our whole lives are expanding, we do see whatever truth we believe, at age 10. Now differently at age 50. And the whole the world does that to cultures do that religions do that. And we just got to try to teach our kids to, quote, "relax in the tension of dynamic change." And it's not easy, I like to say, when we're working with people, to give them, the fact that we understand their resistance to newness and change is not necessarily because they're weak personalities. But it could be they like security, they care about having something they can count on. And they don't always want to think about being dynamic lives, they, you know, they want to get a paycheck, they want to pray in the right church and go to the right heaven, and have their kids, you know, we don't have time to be thinking about all this stuff changing all the time. And so we'd like the security of, of being in a tribe and having things settled. And I think if we let people know, we're all like that, too. Then they will relax and not want to resist us as much in our message. They'll say, yes, but there is dynamism. There is change, we've got to admit it, what do we do about it? How often should I get out of my enclave and go out and start talking with people? You know, should I make that a weekly event? Should I do whatever year? What? How do I fit that into my life where I actually move out and start to seek the whole truth together with someone? Do I take some of the lunch? Who's been my critque? Or my, you know, another words, I'm trying to bring up? Now this question, that we need to have a certain degree of sympathy for our brothers and sisters out there, who think we're nuts doing this stuff, you know, who, who don't really see how practically they can get out of their tribe. They just don't even have the time or the means or that they or even to a certain degree, degree the talent to to get out?
Well, you know, I have curiosity here. I have curiosity as to how you started your life. I understand you. You grew up in New Jersey and an LDS family. How did you come to this really ecumenical holistic view of how we hold one another? I'm curious how you found your calling in that regard.
I'll tell you very quickly, back in the 60s, the prophet leader of the Latter Day Saints with a man named David Mackay and he made this statement all the Mormons they were called Mormons then they've in recent years we've tried to ditch that nickname and go by Latter Day Saints but all the all the high school kids in the whole church all over the world were told you need to be a missionary. You need to get out and tell your friends the truth. And I lived in New Jersey there were four LDS kids in my high school of about 601/3 were Protestants. 1/3 Group Roman Catholics, the other third are Jewish. So I had a, an ample market to penetrate. And my story very simply speed is, is I would go into the homes of my friends, with with this fired up to tell him the truth and get them, get them to see the light. I would be amazed that how wonderful their parents were and how beautiful their families were and how happy they were. And how they I didn't make sense. They didn't have the only true church. How are they such good people living these wonderful lives? You know, it didn't compute for me. So ironically, doing missionary work to be an exclusive missionary claim. It turned me into this pluralist who saw all this wonderful stuff, but I came away saying, Well, God's got things going on, that the LDS people don't quite know, right? No, or if they do, they're, they're not, our profits aren't, are emphasizing this. And so, I like to say I'm not an ex humanist, I'm a radical pluralist, you know, that's the contest station. And acumen is someone who tries to bring people literally, to have communion together. So it means let's make our differences so unimportant, that we can come together in unity. And I like to say, Well, that happens, wonderful. But there's another aspect of reality, where you get to know each other, and you realize your differences are so important that you can't get together with integrity, you know, in terms of your religious commitments. So there's another way of getting together. And that's this collaborative contestation. And it's, it's strange, but most of my conservative traditionalist friends really resonate with this, most of my liberal friends. Say, that's no big deal. We will talk with anybody you know. And I think it comes from this idea of a liberal idea, using the word liberal in our culture, by the way, it's has many meanings, but I think most of your viewers will understand where I'm going with this. They tend to move toward relativism, so that there is no one truth. The truth is beyond all human comprehension. So it really is doctrinal debate, this contest station stuff, that's a waste of time. Because it you know, it just it causes the vision, and and, candidly, no one can know the truth. And so why should we bother? That's a very common liberal point of view. My customers, by and large, and I'd say at least two thirds of the world of this life, believe in a specific tribal truth, that is the highest or the superior form, and that they need to live by it, and that the world would be better off by adopting it. And I take that as a given for many of my customers, and I use the word customers there, but with a smile, to say, okay, that's their view. How do we bring those two people together? What's the motive for bringing two people together who believe each one believes they have a superior view, and we found out the motive was their ethical responsibility to try to convert other people. So we bring missionary to missionary together, you know, a Catholic and a, and an Evangelical, a Shiite Muslim, and a, a Jew, an Orthodox Jew.
It's fascinating if you can bring them together with the understanding that they will have a voice, a honest voice, to be able to persuade another person to see the light. And the only price of admission for that chance is to shut up half the time and let the other party do the same. What happens is a little miracle psychological miracle, they see themselves in the other. They see the sincerity and the intelligence of the other rival. And it impresses them that at least this person is sincere, and is thought through carefully and is not naive. They're, they're dangerously wrong. And it's too bad. You know, I haven't been able to persuade them today. But there's another day, and they're feeling the same way. And that relationship is what we call trustworthy rivalry, of course, or collaborative contestation. It's not for everybody, but it's for people who have that worldview. And more and more, I think on college campuses today, the extreme, shall I say, No, I don't, I won't call it extreme. But the solid view of relativism, that there is no truth itself has become a religious position. And so people are very strongly trying to say, hey, the only The way to world peace is to give up on religion, you know, John Lennon song, right? Just if there were no religion, there'd be no problem. Well, that statement, of course, anybody's thought long and hard about it is an absolute just type statement, you know, get rid of a religion and that's the answer. Well, no, that's not the answer. That's just another view that we need to accept as part of the truth. And bring that view into the conversation tried to persuade me that religions the total problem, I'm all ears.
You know, I've always loved that song. Imagine and a couple of years ago, I figured that I would rewrite one of the lines, and the John Lennon line, and no religion too, and I rewrote it as an all religion true, in the sense that the original meaning of religion is relah Gari, which is that which binds us and connects us to the web of life, the web of love, one another, and so on. And if we look at a fundamental, resonant truth, that rings through every one of these religious connections, that thread even though the the various ways of expressing can be very, very different. The affirmation and all religion true is essentially that each individual can find that truth that they connect with no matter how they explain it. Does that make sense?
Yes, it does. I love the way you, I tried to you and I are blood brothers, because I tried to rewrite that song, too. Based on that same idea that John Lennon was that was too that was a cheap shot, it is too easy a line, right? It really fit his audience. Yeah, it didn't provoke the right amount of deep thought that yours does, right. So I like what you did there. The foundation religious diplomacy is based on a sustaining of continual missionary to missionary contestation, where you try to persuade the other to see the higher truth that really matters more than any human difficulty, more than climate change more than anything else, is, we're going to go to heaven or hell, for eternity. And when you start putting that into your frame of mind, which most I would say most of our buddies don't think that anymore, they don't have to believe in hell. You know, they, and whatever Heaven is, it's a vague thing out there, you know, most of my customer, excuse me, that's got a dry throat, I'd like to make very clear what I'm trying to say here. John Gottman, who influenced our work greatly, he and his wife, Julie, probably the most influential marriage therapists in the country. After years of studying successful marriages, successful marriages, he determined that two thirds of the conflicts within those marriages are never resolved. Never resolve, but the couple, instead of evading the conflict, learns how, as he says, to create a certain rhythm within their relationship, that allows them to engage it with respect and honesty. And it could be they want their kids to be, you know, go to private school or public school or, or be raised a Jew or a Christian, if they're in a mixed marriage, I mean, serious issues in their lives, that that are not theoretical. But the couple decides that their relationship together can include these conflicts, and can include the continual contest of trying to persuade the other person to see the light. And it it almost as a kind of aphrodisiac for the, for the, for the couple, to realize that their love for each other can sustain this kind of difference. And it's that, that reality is what I've tried to talk about when I'm talking about rivals coming together, and really coming away, caring deeply about each other, like a married couple does, and realizing that they owe it to the other person to continue to try to persuade them to see the light. And, and that is part of the relationship. They don't hammer each other. They don't do it all the time, where they can a third of the conflicts are resolved. You know, they do get together and they they make make things happen in their lives. So It's not either or Michael. That's what I'm trying to say. It's, that's why we like to call it collaborative contestation where you can come together and see common ground, go for it. But where you can't, don't pretend that you have to separate your lives. And go your own ways know, if you are ethically bound to try to see the truth and help others see it, you need to preach. But at the same time you need to be preached to. And that's the that's the new that's the new way. Missionaries always have to be in mutual relationships, where someone else is preaching to them. And they're open minded in year two, that that's the new world we're heading for, where people don't have to pretend they have whole lives that they can never share with anybody else that they can they can bring in the whole enchilada, the conflict, the contestation, as well as the collaboration. I hope that made it a little clearer.
It did. Thank you for clarifying that.
I you know, I have a question also related related reality of where we're living right now, and, and what's going on, you know, early on Lincoln's right rivals bringing his rivals into, into community with him so that they could solve problems together. Here we are, I mean, what happens when you have a shooting war? What happens when you have a war where one group is imposing their coercive will on the other? How does this form of engagement help us in those kinds of situations that really we find ourselves in right now?
You're bringing up something perhaps, that is indirectly one of the great learnings that we experienced over the last 20 years the foundation for religious diplomacy, which was their their deep political realities, that you could use this same model. You might be familiar with a book written by Marlon, what's the guy's name, he's a Harvard professor wrote a book last year called the acidities problem. He talks about facilities analysis of the Peloponnesian Wars where the the Athenians saw that the Spartans were starting to grow, that Athens is clearly the dominant power in Greece and really enjoying life. But they saw the Spartans were starting to grow, and that they were, they had a different view of what, what, what what Greece could be, they were very much more militaristic. So this, so it's true. This is an amazing story. The Athenians, who were ethical people had to go and find and drum up negative stories about the Spartans in order to declare war on them before they declared war on that, you know, there was a preemptive strike against a weaker power in order to stay on top. Right. And they knew that it was ethically difficult. So they had to say, Well, really, the Spartans hit us first. Right. And acidities does a beautiful job of showing human nature here, and showing how both societies were just utterly destroyed for years of war. Now, the book that's just been written about the food acidities problem is a book on China, and the United States, the United States sees China now is getting closer and closer, and you know, they're going to want to dominate. So how do we hit them with a preemptive strike? Well, we can't do this ethics ethically with bombs or, or bio weapons, you know, we wouldn't want people to do that to us. So what do we do? This is this is what you're really asking. We're in a situation where are they are enemies? Are we? Are we absolutely certain that if the Chinese had the military power and the economic strength, they would effectively either bomb us or create cyber weapons that would take over our banking system, or in some way subjugate us because they're communists, and we are free market capitalist? I mean, I think if you ask most Americans, they say, Yeah, that's exactly what's gonna happen. As soon as they get up there. They're going to take us down with every everything they can. Now, that's a hypothesis. It might be true. But what if it is If, and what if what we do can influence whether that whether or not that happens? That's the question you seem to be asking. And what could this current this form of collaborative contestation do to build trust between rivals? Who care enough about each other, that they literally want each other to thrive? That they want the contest? Yes, we would we prefer being the strongest power in the world. But we know you prefer that to just like, you're a Muslim, you prefer everybody, we're Muslims. And we prefer if we're Christians, everyone, we're Christians, you know, the we get that now, are we going to reduce ourselves to preemptively strike each other to effectively cut, declare war and advance to assure that we're going to stay on top and you're going to stay down there. That's where we are today. And if the thinking in our country continues that way, it's going to be I mean, before global warming takes us down. There'll be political ramifications that will cause great grief in our world. And it doesn't need to happen. We can. Whatever your politics, Regan was right about one thing when it comes to learning about trust, trust and verify.
Right, incremental trust, and verify is the way everybody does it. You know, you the first date you're on, you're trusting, but you better verify, you know, if that guy says he loves you, let me see some action, you know, what, what does he do to prove it? Right? So the, wherever we take it a step where we extend trust, we are wise to verify. And, and this is, again, great social psychology. So to answer your question, we need to presume we're going to be in a contest and ideological contest about what the best way to live in the world and to govern people is with China, they're probably not going to convert to two to Thomas Jeffersonian democracy. They might, they might, but they're probably not. There's probably going to be years and years, decades, if not centuries of contest over ideological differences. That cannot be a trustworthy contrast, where we agree that it's a contest of persuasion, not coercion. We, that's that's the whole question. Do we care? We want you to bother us with your tent? Does your bothersome ideology belong in our lives as part of the whole truth that we're seeking together? And the answer is got to be yes, we got to put up with that bother. We've got to put up with that challenge. And and hear it to the best that they can speak it. And then all of a sudden, trust does develop between people, and new possibilities will happen. I can't tell you what they'll be. And I'm not saying we ought to multi, you know, unilaterally disarm ourselves know that. That's not what I'm saying. But I'm saying you can incrementally do this and be very wise. That's what that's the deal. All arms control, nuclear arms, treaties, we're all about it. We weren't stupid as when we were working that out together. And we can do that in various ways. So this is that was kind of a long monologue. I know you want to have a conversation on that subject. But I'll stop there and say, What do you think about that? Does that somehow respond to what you're asking?
Well, I'll have one opinion about it. I, I think what you're talking about, for me, personally, applies very much between peoples. But I think we're at a different time, in terms of the motives of others, who have control over much of the political and economic systems of the world. So that might call for a different, a different approach, and a much a different time for another conversation with you about that subject in more depth.
I mean, I'm all ears. I want to hear all the criticism, you have that basic idea of what I would call engaged rivalry that is built on persuasion and not coercion.
We'll have another conversation when you get back and we can do this another time. Steven, hey,
I have a I have a question. And I think it's it's a jumping off from what you just said, and the realities that we're facing right now. One of the guideposts that Michael and I have been using for our podcast is a phrase that Charles Eisenstein came up with. He was our first interview Viewing, he wrote one of his books is called the more beautiful world our hearts know as possible. And that's a sense of, let's say idealism. It's a it's a vision that we're that perhaps even with our, our superduper differences in many ways of getting there. My experience has been that most human beings Aspire toward the same things they aspire toward happiness and health and success for them and their families. And in general, they would like to have that apply to everybody. So when I say the more beautiful world our hearts know, as possible, is there? Is there some vision or some idea that comes to mind for you that that reflects that? Or is that something that that's too idealistic or off the table?
Within the Latter Day Saint, religion, there is a notion, I'm going to use this word carefully, and I hope your listeners will understand that I'm using a word that is loaded politically, in the world today. But within the Latter Day Saint tribe, it has a very different meaning than the one I'm about to use. And it's called Zion. Letter, a same idea using biblical texts was that God actually wants this world here and now before Heaven, to be a Zion, where people can thrive together, who have differences, right. And Joseph Smith was the original Latter Day Saint profit, made, he said that the idea of Zion should be our central goal in all we do. And so, in answering your question, my Latter Day Saint point of view of an ideal world is one where the best of all ideologies, and now I'll put out there, the best of doubters, the best of the atheists, the best of everybody, whatever the the goods are, that come out of your worldview, the best of that would be brought into Zion, and would be digested, not vomited, but somehow digested usefully by all the tribes, not not homogenized into a single reality. But, but everyone would feed off of everyone else's highest and best stuff. And that would mean a radical level of understanding of what things like what a family is, what love is, what the best political arrangement is, how do we deal with inevitable inequality of human capacities? In a world where imposing equalities always turned out to be totalitarian horror? Right? How do we, well in Zion, you care, you just care deeply that other people share your your wealth. And it's not. It's not an utopia, because how that sharing gets done, is a matter of negotiation. So it's not unlike having congresses and tax debates, etc. But in Zion, your religious views would be brought into the conversation. It wouldn't be just talking about whether we ought to tax 20% or 80%. We would actually converse with each other from our idealistic positions and say, This is why I think it should be x. And I come from this ideological position. And in Zion, that's allowed in America. No, no, no, we don't want any of your idealistic because we need to talk about only the facts, right. You guys have your values, we have our values, but we're here in a secular world where none of that crap matters. We just talk about the facts Well, in Zion, you care about enough about why each other believes what they do about the facts, that you really want to know the why behind the facts. And so it's a world of interrelated respect, learning, if I did not say that there would be this ideal equality among all, that everyone would flourish equally, I didn't say that, I basically said, there would be a world in which we cared much more deeply about each other, and wanted to be open to each other's influence in a different way than we are now. And, and that would mean we have to take radical differences seriously. And we see each other not as enemies, but as trustworthy agonists, right? Who have different views of the truth. And then that the dynamic tension of that actually builds the truth for everyone, instead of creating War, where we're shutting down and saying, No, we got a problem here. It's either or, and whoever has the most guns are the most money wins. Now, let me make it very clear to you, Bo, that we're in a world where global warming could get to a point that's just like the pandemic right now. It's a great example, where some people are saying, No, I'm not gonna wear masks or whatever, I'm free. And other people are saying, you're not free to infect me, right? In other words, the old guy we need to get, we need to be adults in this world, and realize any freedom has a limit by another free, right. And we're going to have really serious issues about global warming coming down the pipe. And another very serious issue about bio bio engineering, humans, human bodies and minds, where religious and ideological issues are going to be brought right into the reality, should we try to create Superman in the United States? Who has such fast minds that they can they can think about anything? Should we bioengineer our people to live 100 years and be six feet tall? Right? And we would say no, no, Americans should say no, no, no, you won't do that. When someone comes in and says, Well, the Chinese are doing it. You know, they're doing it already. And next, and about 30 years from now, they're all going to be so brilliant that they can treat us like mice. We got to do it. So we haven't we you see where I have we've got we're in a world where we have to fork tact realize that our ideologies will make a difference in practical reality. And so if we don't find a way of engaging with the ideological level in a respectful, mutually persuasive way, we're going to end up with coercion being the game again, and it'll be the Athenians and the Spartans, just beating each other to a pulp, and no one will win. So I'm not an idealist, I'm a pragmatist, Zion is a practical way of keeping the tensions lower, so that you can thrive with the differences instead of ultimately coming to blows over them. And we've got real problems, worldwide problems that we're going to have to thrive in our different views, because things practically have to be done.
You know, this is something that's happening inside each culture. I have a friend, a colleague, who moved to China in 2015. He's now married to a Chinese woman who has a Chinese medical practitioner, and she's young master. And he told me, we were on a call last week, and he told me that traditional Chinese medicine, about one quarter of the doctors, there are traditional Chinese medical doctors, and then being a very practical people, when the pandemic hit when they saw the results. And they saw the results of those traditional Chinese medical practitioners, actually treating people, they shifted their perspective. And now they're actually teaching kids in elementary school, tai chi, Qi Gong, etc. And they've brought these their 5000 years of history into play. Apparently, there's been 328 plagues they've had in 5000 years. And so they've used their traditional medicine to find ways right now, to deal with it to the point where my friend, when he goes to Shanghai, there's no vaccine passports or anything like that. They take your temperature when you walk into the mall. And that's it. So things that we don't know, things that we've been projecting on the other based on the limited information that we're getting. So I think the heartening news is that inside every culture, inside every society, there is that desire for wholeness, to bring forth the whole picture so that other people don't have to be enslaved by one's etiology. That seems like a then again that that's a totalitarian, totalitarian point of view. Well, everybody needs to be vaccinated, because we have this pandemic. That's a totalitarian point of view, maybe not necessarily true. And yet we understand the impulse of this whole ism. And I think, progressives in particular, because of that moral relativism has been hijacked into this COVID narrative that's a lot very panicky, and very material, and does not take into consideration the spiritual dimension of what, however, we perceive divine love, and whatever that means to us. And perhaps our evolutionary destiny has to do with finding different ways of integrating this, this divine love, even if we perceive it differently. And recognizing, as you said, that Utopia doesn't mean the old Utopia means to me is having better problems to solve.
I love it. I love it.
Don't you think? Instead of these children are starving? How about well, how can we have help each child fulfill their own purpose and destiny in life? So I think when we elevate that from the perfection of, you know, angels, playing harps and Heaven, to actually the practical aspect of what you've pointed out, Randall, have this Zion notion where we somehow are able to manage our difficulties, like these successful couples, where we, who knows maybe it's makeup, sex, maybe we all need makeup sex, as a way out, in a way through. So anyway, this has been a phenomenal conversation. Michael, do you have anyZthing to add or, or ask at this point?
No, other than say, I really appreciate the the opportunity to hear the definition of the Zion. And I think that's, that's a great way to look at the heart that our the world in our hearts known as possible, and to move towards that. So thank you for that. Thank you for your time. And this this wonderful conversation. I look forward to continuing this again. So Randall,
I can tell, I've got a I can just sense a vibe with you that there's some political issues between us that I would really love to engage. I think you could teach me a few things. So make me part of your life.
I mean, well, and you are. Thank you. Yes.
And for our audience who's been watching today, we hope you've enjoyed the conversation. We invite you to please come back, again, from the political battlefields to the cooperative playing fields. May we move there together. And until we meet again, have a good day. Bye bye,