S1. Ep9 | We see the World as We are

By all accounts, I’m a weird attorney. I believe in a world of win/win. 

Because the legal system is based on lack and the adversarial system. As lawyers have been taught that separation and adversarial engagements create the best and highest possible good in the situation.  This process leads many lawyers to hold high ego that they are justified in seriously degenerating things in the name of advocating for their client. Because the adversarial system is a win/lost system. Someone must lose and someone must win and this is justice served.  I call bullshit. 

In the past weeks I have talked about the concept of our thoughts creating action. Our thoughts creating our reality. I’m going to put this little gem out there for you to ponder. 

“All thought is acted upon.” 

Regardless if you are the actor or not. “You see the world as you are”  

Meaning, if you see a world of assholes - perhaps you need to take a look at yourself and confirm first who the #1 asshole in the room is.  The constant asshole in all of those situations; yourself. Similarly I’ve been accused of being naively positive and not realistic enough more than once. But I believe first “assume support” and that every person is a divine being deserving of love and respect. Now you attack me or my family, my friends or my business I will defend myself.  I am not a floor mat. But 1st and foremost I care about everyone, and want the best and highest good for all.  And I assume that anyone across the table from me is doing the same.  Even in legal matters. 

This is a lack mentality pervasively infesting an entire system that governs our world. In the US at least. And it masquerades as Justice. When it's an illusion spreading the lie that we are justified in judging another, because one must win and one must lose.  Why can’t both parties win? Why is any consideration of this called alternative dispute resolution? An alternative to what? To win/lose? Why is win lose more realistic? Why is win/win seen as unrealistic? What makes it more or less realistic than the belief that there is a lack in the world and thus for one to gain another must lose? What if the world had enough for everyone? It does by the way. 

We live in abundance. But we believe in lack.  We are ensconced in lack and it makes so many people live in survival mode fighting to get their scraps - when there is a cornucopia of bounty just waiting to be had if you stop playing in the mud puddle. 

So, I challenge you to relearn the belief in what is truly realistic. Why is the negative any more realistic than the positive? There is absolutely no empirical evidence one way or the other. Though our belief in one