Book Review: The Myth of Multitasking

This is a very simple and straight forward book.  It takes about one hour to read it, and it has the potential to vastly improve ones effectiveness, time management, and personal relationships.  It confirmed to me what I've thought for a long time.  There is no such thing as multitasking.  You can only actively pay attention to one thing at a time. 

For example: You can drive and also have a conversation with a passenger, but the driving doesn't take any active thought most of the time, it's a background task.  Then when you try to merge into rush hour traffic or the car in front of you hits the brakes, suddenly driving becomes the active task and you stop hearing the passenger.  A moment later you have ask your passenger "I'm sorry, what was that?"

You can either background task something which takes very little thought, or you can "switchtask" very quickly between two things that demand attention.  Unfortunately, the more you switch , you more you have to play catch up because it takes a moment to pick up where you left off.

The example the book gives is simple.  On one line write the sentence: "Multitasking is worse than a lie"  Then below it write out the numbers from 1-27. 

Okay, now do it again, but switch back and forth writing one letter on the top line, then one number on the bottom line till you've written all 27 numbers and letters, switching back and forth between each one.  You'll be surprised how much longer it takes to do it switching between the two rather than completing one then the other.  You'll also likely make a few mistakes when doing the two back and forth rather than one after the other.

Anyway - you get the point.  And if you think I'm lying and that you work better getting text messages and e-mails all the time in the middle of your conversations then think about how many times you've read a message then had to ask the person in front of you to repeat themselves.  It's like the book says:

“Multitasking: A polite way of telling someone you haven’t heard a word they’ve said.” 

Here's a few more of my favorite quotes:

“The people we live with and work with on a daily basis deserve our full attention.  When we give people segmented attention, piecemeal time, switching back and forth, the switching cost is higher than just the time involved.  We end up damaging relationships.”

”Never commit to something without your calendar in hand.”

“Helping people understand the simple truth will help them change their behavior faster than simply trying to get them to change their behavior.”

Book Review: Leadership and Self Deception

     This book was a much better read than I expected.  It is a novel, the whole book is a fictional story to illustrate the themes and main points of the book.  It does a great job of teaching and explaining while at the same time entertaining you and stating what you may be thinking at different moments.  This book is great because it doesn't teach leadership techniques.  I t doesn't teach communication skills or behaviors that will improve effectiveness and productivity.  It teaches you not what to do, but how to be.  

     I'm fairly certain this book was not intended to have any religious significance, but as I read it I couldn't help but think that I had heard all of this before - at church.  The Phrase - "Love one Another" - could easily be the title of this book, as could "Listen to the Spirit."

Here are a few quotes from the book that made me think I was in Sunday School:

#1: “Some people…inspire devotion and commitment in others, even when they’re interpersonally clumsy.”

 - This made me think of Moses 

#2: “This isn’t about perfection.  Far from it. It’s simply about getting better.”

#3:  "When we're out of the box and seeing others as people we have a very basic sense about others – namely that, like ourselves, they have hopes needs cares and fears.  And on occasion, as a result of this sense we have impressions of things to do for others - things we think might help them."

 - I thought this was a perfect description of promptings from the Holy Ghost. 

#4: “I don’t remember trying to change myself.  Somehow, I just ended up changed – almost like something changed me.”

 -  Doesn't this sound like people who have had God's grace granted to them, in forgiveness, in the Holy Ghost, or other ways - something changes you.

#5: “There are times when we have special impressions of additional things we should do for others.”

The first two lessons I learned from the book were:

Lesson #1: I am the Problem

Lesson#2: The fact that other people have problems does not justify or excuse my own.

Here is a list of my other favorite quotes and ideas from the book: (there were a lot)

“If I’m not interested in knowing a person’s name, I’m probably not really interested in the person as a person.  For me, it’s a basic litmus test.”

 “However bitterly I complain about someone’s poor behavior toward me and about the trouble it causes me, I also find it strangely delicious.  It’s my proof that others are as blameworthy as I’ve claimed them to be.”

 “Helpful skills and techniques aren’t very helpful if they’re done in the box.  They just provide people with more-sophisticated ways to blame.”

 “When you’re in the box, people follow you, if at all, only through force or threat of force.  But that’s not leadership.  That’s coercion.”

Book Review: The Associate - By John Grisham

I am running into a consistent problem with John Grisham's books - he's changed.  In 1989 he wrote A Time to Kill and it was a captivating story.  He had a gripping story to tell, and he told it well.  He followed it up with The Firm, The Pelican Brief, and The Client.  I thought these books were amazing.  In fact - The Client was the first novel I read cover-to-cover in one day.

Since then he has strayed.  He has still written some great stories; his non-fiction book An Innocent Man was amazing.  But as I have read A Painted House, The Appeal, and The Associate I have been disappointed.  John Grisham remain an amazing story teller.  I stayed up until 12:30 last night to finish this book - but in the end, it wasn't worth it.  The story telling is great, the characters are intriguing, and the relationships are real.  But then, the story is real too.  It's like Grisham decided that he wasn't going to write good stories with an ending anymore, he was just going to write a good story and leave the end off.  I don't know if he's decided that he needs to be more realistic - and in real life we seldom get closure -all the loose ends are never tied up. 
I know that's life - BUT THAT'S WHY I READ BOOKS!  I want closure.  I want to know what happened.  I want a nice closed off ending, and if there isn't, I want a sequel.  David Baldacci sometimes leaves story lines hanging at the end...so he can pick them up in the next book.  Grisham hasn't done that.

I keep giving Grisham second chances because I loved his early books so much, but he keeps disappointing me.  When will I learn?

Book Review: Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

This was a very fun book, and as usual, it was much better than the movie.  Reading this book reminded of the movie “A Knight’s Tale.”  My mother-in-law hates that movie because it is historically inaccurate.  It takes place in the 1370’s but has the crowd at jousting tournaments chanting “We Will Rock You” by Queen.  The movie does an excellent job at making us feel what the people felt back then.  They were excited! I’ll even bet the music was probably loud and rebellious for their time.

That is how Percy Jackson makes me feel about Greek/Roman Mythology – it brings it all to life.  It makes it modern; it makes the gods, the titans, the demi-gods – all real.  It makes the stories fun and relevant.  When I was in grade school and we watched “The Clash of the Titans” I only thought it was cool because there were swords and blood.  I didn’t understand the story, the villains weren’t really that scary, and the hero wasn’t inspirational – it was just a REALLY REALLY old story being told in an old black and white movie.  This book changes all that.  It weaves a new tale into the classic mythology.  It makes the gods and their personalities and passions modern and real.  It makes it exciting and fun – and it makes you want to learn more.  I admit – when I finished the book, I went straight to Wikipedia to look up the different gods and see who was related to whom, why they were rivals, who killed who, etc…  I was completely enthralled in the world of Greek mythology.

It’s a great book:  It’s clean, it’s fun, and it makes you want more.

Book Review: The Five People You Meet In Heaven – by Mitch Albom

Oddly enough – I was slightly disappointed when I read this book.  I read Mitch Albom’s other famous book Tuesday’s with Morrie first, and absolutely loved it.  When I read this story, it just wasn’t as good.  It was certainly thought provoking.  The twists and turns as you read are unexpected and intriguing.  The book explains one view of what heaven might be like, and how we might come to see our life differently from another person’s point of view.  Five different points of view actually – from five people who can explain a moment or part of our life in a way we had never thought before.  Four of the people’s stories made sense to me, but my problem was with the third person – Ruby.

The story starts with Eddie’s death – then his journey with 5 people to explain the meaning of moments in his life.  When Albom writes the chapter about Ruby, he decides to throw in the story of Eddie’s Dad.  But Ruby never met Eddie’s dad, and having both these stories tied together in the same chapter was a bit of a stretch.  For me it didn’t work – he should have either omitted one of the stories, or called the book instead “The SIX People You Meet in Heaven.”  

My other problem was that it’s a little too simple.  5 people – and that’s all you really need to learn about your life before you set up your own version of heaven.

Yes the story is fascinating.  The characters are well described, and the writing makes you want to keep reading – you’ll easily finish the book in a day or two because you’ll want to finish it.

But it’s not as “AMAZING” or life changing as people had said.  I may be slightly biased having just read Charles Dickens – A Christmas Carol.  I think that story does a much better job, with three spirits, of taking a man through his life and showing him things he had forgotten or never realized.

SO – my advice: Read “The Five People,” then read “Tuesdays with Morrie,” and then read “A Christmas Carol”

Book Review: Where the Red Fern Grows – by Wilson Rawls

I am pretty sure I was supposed to read this book when I was in the fourth grade. At the time all I knew was that the movie was sad and would make the girls in my class cry. I had no idea who Wilson Rawls was or that he had written the book while living in my hometown. There was even a statue placed in front of our city library of Billy Colman with Old Dan and Little Ann.

Well, this weekend I was looking for a book to read over the three day break and I was pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed this book.

It is the kind of story that you want to read to your kids. It shows the excitement and thrill of a young boy hunting with his dogs. It shows the concern and love of a mother who has to let her son go out on adventures, even though she's scared he'll get hurt or lost. It tells of the hard working father who wants a better life for his kids, but wants them to enjoy life no matter what. Billy's grandpa adds the little bits of encouragement that Billy needs to see his dreams come true. There's Billy, who shows the foolishness of a young boy, but the absolute love that young boys can possess. Then there Old Dan and Little Ann, the dogs who are more like best friends and will never, NEVER abandon each other or their boy – Billy.

The story does make you cry, and that's okay - it's worth it.

Book Review: A Christmas Carol – by Charles Dickens

I have tried to read a book by Charles Dickens many times now.  I’ve never been able to get far enough into one of his novels to get hooked.  I figured – “This is ridiculous.  I can read 1400 pages of Victor Hugo, but I can’t read 300 pages of Dickens?”

So, even though it is May, and nowhere near Christmas time, I decided to Read A Christmas Carol.

The book is wonderful.  I won’t detail the story; I’m sure most of you know it very VERY well.  Up until now I only knew the Muppet’s version (which is surprisingly true to the book)

Two passages stuck out to me.

“The air filled with phantoms…every one of them wore chains like Marley’s ghost…The misery with them all was clear, that they sought to interfere, for good, in human matters, and had lost the power forever.” – p. 28-29 

This is how I envision Hell.  Imagine finally understanding, finally knowing what people need.  You can see their anguish and you want to help them…but you can’t.  You have no physical body.  You can do nothing.  You can’t lend a helping hand, or dry a tear, or give them money, food, or shelter.  You can’t console them or care for them; you can’t do anything but sit and watch the suffering.  All you can do is sit and bemoan the fact that you had the chance to help when you were alive, and didn’t.  Now it’s too late.

“Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die?  It may be that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child.” – p. 74

I see the poor and the homeless every day.  I know that many of them are drunks, druggies, and thieves.  I sit listening to their stories all day and then I go home at night to my house, and my family, with my paycheck in hand.  I’m sure I’ve thought many times like Scrooge, that I am better than them.  I am a “productive member of society” I think to myself.  Luckily, for myself, and everyone else – I am not the one who decides who lives or dies.  This book reminds me that in heaven’s view, I may be more worthless and less fit to live than millions like them.

This book brings humility and perspective to a wanton and self-serving world.  I might need to read it every Christmas...and every June; just to be sure I haven’t lost my way.

Two Fathers: Valjean and Tevye

    



     What will one do for the love of a daughter? These two characters give up all that is dear to them to help the ones they love. Their journey is long and arduous, and maybe that’s why they are so memorable.

     These two men were quite different. Valjean was a convict, finally released from a French prison in 1915. He was a hard man, strong, gruff, and suspicious of everyone, until kindness and mercy were shown to him. He broke his parole and eventually became a wealthy man, the mayor of a city. He there befriended a dying woman whose only wish was to see her daughter before she passed. When the woman died Valjean sought out her daughter Cosette, and cared for her as if she were his own. He tried to keep her innocent, sheltered, and loved. He feared being caught so he avoided making friends or entertaining company. He was a rich man.

     Tevye was a poor milkman living in Czarist Russia in the 1880’s. He lived in a small Jewish village with his wife and 5 daughters. He was very honest, and very religious. He would not perform work on the Sabbath day, he always kept his head covered and wore his prayer shawl. He loved his religion and the traditions that went along with it. He loved his daughters and wanted them to marry intelligent men – scholars.

    Tevye was content with his life, but told God “It's no shame to be poor, but it's no great honor either. So what would have been so terrible if I had a small fortune?” He then dreams of what he would do with all his money. At first he wants a big house with servants and livestock, but he then says he just wants to see his wife happy. He wants time to sit in the synagogue, and discuss the Holy Books with the learned men. “That would be the sweetest thing of all."

     Jean Valjean was rich,but refused to live like it. He lavished gifts on his daughter Cosette giving her all the finest clothes, but he refused to wear them himself. He walked with a beggars coat - but instead of begging money of others, he gave to the needy. His coat was lined with secret pockets and pouches all filled with money for the poor. He became known as “the beggar who gives alms” and was mockingly called “monsieur threadbare millionaire.” Had Tevye been a rich man, he likely would have spoiled his wife and daughters. I believe he would have been like Valjean, giving to the poor and feeling uncomfortable in wealthy attire.

     Both these men had good lives for a while. They were content, their daughters were happy, and they both thought life would stay that way; but politics would intrude, and their daughters would find love.

     Tevye’s daughters tried his patience progressively. His eldest daughter Tzeitel did not stray far. She simply didn’t want to marry the man the matchmaker had picked. She didn’t want an easier life with the wealthy butcher; she wanted to marry the love of her life, a poor local Jewish tailor named Motel. Tevye was a little disappointed, but he wanted to see her happy, so he gave in.

     Tevye’s second daughter tried his patience further. She wanted to marry a radical young Jewish boy named Perchik who was not from town. When Perchik decided to join the revolution, he proposed and Tevye’s daughter accepted. Tevye forbid the marriage but was told “we are not asking for your permission, only for your blessing. We are going to get married.” Tevye saw no way out. He wanted his daughter to be happy, so again he gave in and gave them then his permission and his blessing. Later, when Perchik went to Kiev to join the revolution, he was arrested and exiled to Siberia. Tevye’s daughter went there to join her husband, and Tevye’s fears were realized. She left the village, likely never to be seen again.

     Tevye’s third daughter asked to marry a young Russian named Fyedka who was not of the Jewish Faith. Tevye forbid it, and forbade them from ever speaking again. When his daughter Chava eloped with the Russian, Tevye proclaimed “Chava is dead to us! We'll forget her.” He cried and struggled mightily when his daughter begged for his acceptance, but he could not ignore his religion, he couldn’t abandon everything he held dear. He ignored her, refused to speak to her and rejected her.

     Soon his perfect little life was completely upside down. One daughter had married a poor tailor, and another had moved to Siberia with her exiled husband. His third daughter had married outside the faith and was now dead to the family. Now, the back-breaking news, he was being forced to leave his home. The Czar had evicted all Jews. Tevye’s entire community was forced to make a mass exodus out of town. As Tevye was leaving town his third daughter came by to say her last goodbyes. He ignored her as she said goodbye to her mother and sisters. He tried to stay strong, stick to his convictions, but he couldn’t help it. He loved her too much. As she was leaving he said “God be with you.”

     Valjean’s adopted daughter Cosette had much in common with Tevye’s daughters. She loved someone who was forbidden by her father - a revolutionary who was going to battle. Her love was not forbidden because the man was poor, or a revolutionary, or of a different faith. It was forbidden because Valjean didn’t know how to live without her. He couldn’t let her go, he couldn’t survive without his little Cosette. It wouldn’t matter what it was that took her away, anything would devastate him. Valjean went to great lengths to keep them apart. Like Tevye, Valjean had more to worry about than just his daughter. He was being chased by the police. An old enemy had also found him, and was trying to rob Valjean of all his wealth. Valjean decided they had to move far away, across the sea. This would keep him from losing her, and also let him escape the police and the thieves that haunt him. He had everything set, his perfect life would continue somewhere else…but his daughter was unhappy. Her boyfriend, Marius, was not going with them. The revolution had begun and he was staying to fight. He sent a letter to Cosette which Valjean intercepted saying: “I die, I love you. When you read this, my soul will be near you, and will smile upon you."

     As happened many times in Valjeans life, he was faced with a decision. If he did nothing, life would go on easily. He could let Marius die in battle, and move with his daughter to England. It was perfect, it was simple, and he didn’t have to do anything to make it happen. Valjean couldn’t just let it happen. He loved his daughter too much. So he went to the battlefront himself. He fought together with the rebels, trying to protect Marius. When Marius was shot, Valjean carried him down into the sewers eventually to freedom and a place to heal. Marius eventually recovered and Valjean consented to their wedding. He did not wish to mar his daughter’s marriage in any way. Valjean knew he was still a wanted ex-convict, and any connection he had to Cosette would put her in danger. He excused himself from the marriage, had someone else sign the marriage certificate and gradually withdrew from his daughter’s life. He returned instead to living more like a beggar. He gave his life, his happiness; to ensure nothing would interfere with his daughter’s happiness. On his death bed Cosette and Marius are with him when he said his last words. “I die happy, let me put my hands upon your dear little heads.”

     These two fathers were great examples to us all. One is presented to us in a 1400 page novel, the other, in a set of short stories. Most people today know them through two very popular musicals: Fiddler on the Roof, and Les Miserables. We love them, and we strive to be like them. They have shown us how to love, how to live, and how to learn. They taught us how to be selfless. They taught us that you don’t lose your identity when you love someone, your identity simply changes as you become someone better.

     These two fathers were created in the minds of Victor Hugo and Solomon Naumovich Rabinovich, but they live on perpetually in our minds, our memories and in our hearts.

Book Review: Mockingjay - The Hunger Games series

I finished the series and my first thought was…the author went overboard.

The first book was an amazing story, well written, engaging, and positive enough to get past the gruesomeness of the tale.

The second book had two purposes, to show the authors creativity, and to set up the third book - I thought it was great. I loved her ideas for the arena, and all the subtle hints along the way of what was REALLY going on.

The third book was not a good story. It wasn’t good overcoming evil, it wasn’t triumph over tragedy, or even victory over adversity. It didn’t show creative solutions to tough problems. Instead it was very realistic. It showed great plans come to nothing, it showed people at their worst, and it described in VERY graphic detail the most horrific parts of war. I’ll admit that the books portrayed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder fairly well. It showed what can cause it, and how it can manifest later, and carry on for years. So that aspect was well done.

The very end of Mockingjay was predictable, but the author had screwed up the telling of the story so much that it wasn’t even enjoyable. I wasn't impressed, I was disappointed.

If you’re going to write a story that’s fun to read…then do it.
If you’re going to describe the atrocities of war and the evil in the world…then do it.
But don’t mix them together...or you end up with a disappointing mish-mash of a series.

Book Review: The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games causes a conundrum in my brain. It is riveting. I read the first book of the series in less than 24 hours, and that’s with a full time job, three kids and a wife. Suzanne Collins does an amazing job of weaving an enthralling tale. A friend at work asked me at lunch what I was reading that was so interesting that I couldn’t even put it down as I ate. I started to tell him about the book.

It’s post-apocalyptic, when all known countries no longer exist and one central government has taken over what remains. The Capital controls everything, and has divided the citizens into 12 districts. Each district is completely isolated, is starving for food, and provides a necessary resource to the Capital, like District 12 provides Coal.
There was once a rebellion from District 13, which no longer exists because it was bombed into oblivion by the Capital for rebellion. To convince the rest of the districts to obey, they hold the annual “Hunger Games” They select 2 teenagers from each district in a lottery, and then put them in a huge arena where they kill each other until only one kid is left alive. That kid is the winner, and their district gets additional food and a slightly easier life for the next year.

At this point my friend said “That actually sounds rather vicious and gruesome…I’m not sure I want to read something like that.”

Our conversation ended there, but I wanted to tell him how that’s not how it’s portrayed at all. The author fascinates you with the back story of the “tributes” which are the kids selected to fight in the Hunger Games. After learning about their families we learn about their trip to the Capital and how they are dressed up and presented as Gladiators. We learn their skills, the amazing clothes they wear, their fighting gear. We learn who has made secret alliances, who the crowd is cheering for and why. There is a “Head Gamemaker” who designs the battle arena each year. He designs it with advantages, challenges, and ways to make the tributes come closer together to make them fight, so there will be more action for the viewers at home. The arena is different every year, and when I finished the book I was anxious to see what next year’s arena would look like. The author didn't disappoint. The second arena is AMAZING! The different weapons, and traps and the entire set-up is genius.

That’s when it hit me. I’m a citizen of the Capital. Suzanne Collins (the author) is the Head Gamemaker. She is taking something horrific and terrible, and presenting it in such a way that I can’t turn away. She makes me like some tributes and cheer for them, while hating others. I find myself cheering for some to win…to kill the others. It’s like the movie “The Running Man” with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I am cheering because the games are fun and interesting, even though people are dying. I’ve become a Roman citizen at the Colosseum watching the Gladiators fight to the death.
The sad part is, I’ve read the second book, and I am actively reading the third. I can’t put them down. It’s like watching all the seasons of “24.” Each is bloodier, and more tragic than the last, but because of the way they are portrayed, it’s hard not to watch. Suzanne Collins has proven she is the ultimate Head Gamemaker, and she is making millions doing it.

Book Review: Jonathan Livingston Seagull

WOW, I haven’t read this book in fifteen years and somehow I forgot how amazing a thirty minute book can be.

This book has been read by millions of people, and I’m sure very few learn the same lesson from it. To me the book had very little to do with flying or seagulls, and everything to do with the origin of God, and the potential in each of us.

[I intended this to be a fun book report about a fun book, but when I read it, all I could think of was its religious aspects - so this is a much more spiritual book report than I ever expected]

Jonathan is a seagull who wants to do more than scrounge for food every day. He doesn’t see the point in fighting with the other seagulls over morsels of food, and he certainly doesn’t see flight only as a means to get to food.

He enjoys flying, he spends his days trying to attain faster speeds, lower flights, faster dives, better turns, and how to do it all using the least amount of energy possible. He analyzes other birds, how they succeed in these maneuvers, and how he can mimic them.

For all this, he is cast out of his flock, he causes too much trouble, he’s too different, he’s not a good seagull.

Eventually he is found by two other outcasts, who can fly as well as he does, and better. He follows them to “heaven” where all the seagulls care about is flight, and getting better at it. They still eat, but they eat much better than the regular seagulls because their flight allows them to catch better food.

He then meets one who is the oldest, and the wisest; some call him the “Great Gull.” Jon learns from him that the physical body Jon has mastered, is just a projection of Jon’s own thoughts. He could fly instantaneously to any place or any planet he wanted, just by already knowing he was there. Jon eventually learns how to “teleport” and to do any number of seemingly miraculous things. His mentor eventually leaves this world forever, and Jon goes back to teach his old flock what he has learned. He is at first rejected. He practices his miraculous flying in front of them and eventually gains a large following. He first teaches them the basics of flight, how to fly faster, use less energy etc. Any time he mentions thoughts, or the greater power inside them, they are lost, confused, and wonder what that has to do with flying faster and higher?

Eventually one pupil shines through (Fletcher), and over time Jon teaches him the greater truth, it isn’t about physical ability, that was just a means to get him to realize his mental capabilities. Jon teaches him until he can “teleport” on his own, then Jon says he is leaving, going on to other worlds, not to return. He tells his pupil “Don’t let them spread silly rumors about me, or make me a God. O.K. Fletch? I’m a seagull. I like to fly.”

Then Jonathan Seagull was gone. Fletcher goes back to the other pupils and starts teaching them “You’ve got to understand that a seagull is an unlimited idea of freedom, an image of the Great Gull, and your whole body, from wingtip to wingtip, is nothing more than your thought itself.”

The young gulls look at him quizzically and wonder what on earth that has to do with flying a loop in the air?

Fletcher sighs and says “Hm, Ah…very well, let’s begin with level flight.” The young gulls saw Jon as the great gull, and Fletcher as his pupil. Fletcher realized that Jonathan had been no more divine than Fletcher himself.

- To me this book shows one possibility of the Origin of God, and of the potential of Man.

God was once a man, built like the rest of us with the same ability and opportunity. He was determined to learn, to advance. He wanted something more than the daily grind. He found eternal truths, discovered abilities that were available to all, but were ignored because they were simply unbelievable to common minds. Now he has reached the point of perfection, of all knowledge, all power. He understands all laws, and man’s true potential. He makes us his pupils, and tries to teach us. He offers all of us the same ability and knowledge that he has. He tries to teach us, but few understand such great truths because they simply don’t make sense to our infant minds. So he has to start with simpler ideas. He starts by teaching us things we can do here and now that make life better, He starts with the basics or “level flight.” As we progress we can understand greater and simpler truths until eventually, we are so different from our former selves, that those who have not progressed see us as outcasts.. We seek different things, we believe our life’s goal to be completely different from theirs. We wish to teach them, to help them, but we are rejected. We don’t resent them, we simply have to go back to basics and show them the joy of “level flight” and eventually progress to the greater things.