End of the Puzzle, Beginning of the Mystery

In his book, What the Dog Saw, Malcom Gladwell cites Gregory Treverton as one who’s made a distinction between puzzles and mysteries.

Puzzles are solved with information. Mysteries require judgment, assessment of uncertainties and penetrating questions that un-layer the puzzle.

A mystery will not be solved by puzzle solvers.

I’ve found in the church that we have a lot of puzzle solvers. People who believe we just need more information. And then if we plug that information in, it will bring the right result. This result is the end/finish/goal. My experience is that "the result" is seldom the end. It’s usually the beginning... the mystery.

God's wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.

Puzzles need to be solved. There's nothing wrong with that. But, maybe you're in a mystery.

Graphite vs Ink

If you were Graphite would you ever get upset? People are always taking you for granted, using you then erasing you, using you again. When you finally produce something worthwhile, then what happens? Ink comes along and traces over you to make it “stand out” more. Or worse yet, you’re thrown away and Ink takes all the credit by making a whole new document based on your original idea. Most people don’t realize that Ink takes all the glory but you do all the work or as Henry Petroski says, “Ink is the cosmetic ideas wear in public. Graphite is truth.”

Sure the pen (filled with Ink) is mightier than the sword but where would it be without you? I’ll tell you where… flagrantly filling in textured nooks and crannies, one arrogant false start blotted out by another. Remember when they tried to make Ink erasable? Who had that stupid idea? Erasing ink was like trying to get a 40-year-old-man to move out of his parent’s house … awkward and more than a little embarrassing. I’ve seen evictions by the Sheriff go cleaner than trying to erase Ink. Don’t call on Ink to Graphite’s job.

Ink parades itself as a medium of communication. But there’s no give and take, no flexibility, there’s no reasoning with Ink. It’s not communication. It’s a monologue. The truth is Graphite’s dialogue takes more character. Anyone can have the last word. All you have to do is yell loud enough and then slam the door.

So, if you were graphite you might get upset at times. Many people want to extol the virtues of Ink while quickly forgetting your own. Just remember that Ink has its place but Graphite has its places…

And there are very few things in life that need to be stained indelibly in black.

Crowds

I struggle with the reality that though men and women have the capacity for great acts of kindness, beauty, intelligence and sacrifice our actions often fall dramatically short of our potential. How does one explain the holocaust? The crusades? The flying of civilian planes into buildings full of innocent people? Are men and women inherently intelligent or not?

On a lesser scale how does one explain a host of decisions by political parties, educational and judicial systems or even denominations? Obviously something sinister is involved here. Scriptures call it sin. But how does sin and stupidity get such a stronghold?

I’ve read a little bit of James Surowiecki’s book, The Wisdom of Crowds. It’s a fascinating read. While at first I thought it might be contradicting to my opinions I think especially after reading some of the Q&A with the Surowiecki that in the end it’s congruent with the only conclusion I’ve been able to make:

In crowds the opportunity for stupidity is heightened.

The more we identify with a group the more we tend to forfeit our right to think critically. We become lazy. We worry about what others in the crowd think. We elect people to make decisions for us and we don’t bother to check out the facts. We all know this and yet, we fall for it time and again. So it’s worth repeating: Just because a crowd is for a particular answer doesn’t make that answer intelligent, right or honest.

On the contrary, maybe it’s more accurate to say wherever you find the crowd, intelligence and integrity decrease. (Eugene Peterson applies this little observation: Which promise is most likely to be kept? The one between the politician and thousands of people or the one exchanged between two friends?)

Kierkegaard said, “The crowd is untruth.”

Jesus said, “Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.”

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? When are crowds appropriate or positive or honest?