Gandhi, if not Christ, is the figure most people visualise when discussing the power of peace. Gandhi was asked whether his pacifism would have worked against Nazi Germany. He replied that he didn't know but it would be something to try. He was a brave man and his pacifism was, paradoxically, aggressive in the face of aggression. Christ tried to bring a message of love to the world. Both men were killed. Both men's philosophies are stronger than ever.

Unfortunately, most of us are not Gandhi or Christ. Is the reality that the threat of violence is the real secret to peace--that which keeps us in line?

Do we slow down to 30 miles per hour in towns because of our concern for children or because we could face a stiff penalty and/or lose our licence? Do we refrain from punching that no-goodnik because we would prefer to turn the other cheek or because we would likely end up jail (or reprimanded and given a 'record'). When we are starving and see food behind the windows of shops, do we refrain from helping ourselves because we want to lose weight or because we will end up in jail if we indulge? 

I am prepared to accept that there are really wonderful, honest, and trustworthy people in the world. I would put it at around 1-2% of the population. In like manner, I am also prepared to accept that there are thoroughly rotten, nasty folk who are either damaged from circumstances (external injustices visited upon them from birth) or are intrinsically bad people. I would ascribe a similar number to them (1-2%). The rest of us are on a continuum/spectrum somewhere in between.

Most of us will go the route of least resistance. If a nasty person is in charge, we allow our nasty traits to rise to the surface (again, look at Nazi Germany). If an enlightened person is in charge, we strive to elevate our outlook and see the bigger picture; we put aside pettiness for the larger goal (witness Gandhi's role in bringing riots in a partitioned India to an end). Both leaders demand (and get) sacrifices. Unfortunately, life and history is full of nasty people who rise and aspire to the highest offices. The result is a population that follows (and is pushed by) these nasty people.

How are we ruled? By laws, presumably. What if we break these laws? We are punished. What if we object to the punishment (or are unwilling to subject ourselves to the punishment)? Those who punish bring in reinforcements, usually carrying batons or watercannon or guns. What if we continue to object? We are forcibly subdued, sometimes injured or killed, and almost always face an extreme version of the punishment. In essence, the will of the people is enforced upon us. To project its will, society needs those to carry out its wishes. The most powerful societies self-regulate, content with the knowledge of who and what they are. The weakest societies resort to enforcing laws with police and, in extreme cases, the army. (In various religions, we are kept in check by the threat of eternal damnation or variations on the theme--quite a lot of violence behind the peace...)

The result? We obey the rules.

The threat of violence keeps the peace. Now, all we need to do is to ensure that those who are making the laws and governing us adhere to the same laws and are guided by the unwritten rules that make up our society. If not, the dissonance will create social disorder and dissatisfaction. (We see a lot of this dissatisfaction in the UK today as well as throughout Europe. That, however, is a conversation for another day.)

"Only a fool learns from his own mistakes." When I first heard this, I paused, trying to understand how someone could say something so obviously ignorant. It took a while before I realised that this was a logical statement: only a fool learns by doing; a wise person learns from others. 

That being said, we would all be reduced to quivering bowls of jelly if we were afraid of making mistakes. We MUST be willing to make mistakes--and learn from them--as well as scanning the horizon of experiences and learning from those as well. 

I would like to share one lesson that I learned the hard way: you can not delegate everything. Specifically, you can not delegate critical decisions. As the protagonist (of your life), you must decide which way you are going to jump. You can listen to advisors, seek out wisdom, and study every decision until you sweat. Life is about making those critical decisions. You can delegate a driver to take you to the intersection (or a manager to oversee your daily operations), but you need to decide whether to go straight, left, or right (or fire, hire, or build).

As I reconvene my non-writing life, my inclination is to delegate as much as possible. I believe in finding and employing talented people. These people are specialists in their field--from litigation to land management. Their job is specific to their field of expertise and they will fill in forms, represent me, and safeguard me better than myself. However, there comes a point where I need to say 'enough', or 'change direction'. I need to say go forward, left, or right. 

As I stand at a very real crossroad, I need to decide which way I am going to go. If life has taught me one thing, only I can make this decision.

We live in an age of abundance--if one is lucky enough to be born in a developed country (the 'ovarian lottery' according to Warren Buffet). For those of us who have a full belly and a roof over our head, we look beyond the survival of ourselves towards bettering ourselves and our environment, or satisfying the luxuries of the flesh, mind, and soul. We may eat more or better food. We may partake in gratuitous sex and mind-altering drugs. We may meditate and contemplate the wonderment of life. 

But, as Billy Joel famously said, you still wake up with yourself.

As I navigate the social-sphere (ten months since I first joined), I am struck by how irrelevant and important the social media is. Countless tweets and FB comments wash over me--as mine undoubtedly wash over others.  And yet... the President of the United States chooses to communicate via Twitter... and we all take notice.

The social sphere has become a virtual crowd on the street with newcomers (ie. those under 30 years old) to life seeing it as their normal. I wouldn't walk around with a sandwich board announcing my wares in real life. Why should I do that in the e-world? People continue to flow past, some glance, and the rest ignore. 

To navigate this brave new world I will look to the past instead of the present. That may make me a dinosaur, but at least I will be true to myself. For those who are brazen and like to make a splash in the real world, the e-world will offer unlimited possibilities to make a fool of themselves. They will be true to themselves. For me, I have been generally content with a good book, a good scotch, and a good cigar while having a conversation with another person. I am waiting for a similar experience in the e-world.

It makes me cringe to hear a person who is clearly incompetent boast of their abilities. Inevitably, my mind jumps to my current self-promotion of my books. I ask myself if I am any better? It humbles me and censors my exhuberance. 

It also stokes a fire within me to write better.