Upon reviewing last week's post, it appears that I came to the conclusion that we have artificially enhanced trust with bureaucracy. I suggested a shift in focus from ego-dependence in the moment to interdependent effort for the future. In other words I question the wisdom of trusting (my own and other's) egos today, and I encourage personal learning and growth that trusts future individuals to advance today's learning and growth. So by shifting focus away from this moment, I am mitigating my need to be justified and my desire for power, because it is more difficult for my ego to interact with, much less clash with, a faceless future ego. And if we are able to shift focus in this manner, on a large scale, perhaps the seemingly urgent necessity of bureaucracy will begin to fade.

I want to ask, how can I ensure that my personal learning and growth today will advance learning and growth tomorrow? But in asking this question, I believe I am misinterpreting the concept of trust. Trust, by definition, implies a belief or faith not based on proof. So the answer to the question is, I can never be certain that my personal learning and growth will aid in the advancement of future learning and growth. But I believe I can be reasonably certain that personal learning and growth is more likely to aid in the advancement of future learning and growth than is personal quiescence and stagnation. In addition to the intuitive obviousness of action over inaction, if I don't resolutely add to my personal learning and growth, regardless of its ultimate value, who am I to trust anyone, today or in the future, to put forth any amount of benevolent, humane effort.

So from this, I believe we can work back to one's need to trust others in this moment. Last week I presented some broad strokes that illustrate how it is from fear, (specifically fear of a) violence, b) loss of control, c) conspiracy, and d) injustice), that we have constructed laws to enhance trust. I accept the need for protecting individuals from physical or mental harm. Beyond that, I believe our overabundant complexity of statutory and ordained edicts have led us astray regarding trust. Because I trust another does not allow me to cry "Foul!" if/when I am mistreated or disappointed. I am the one who chose to trust. Trust is not a guarantee. By definition, trust is a leap of faith. If I have misjudged, the failure to span the breadth of the abyss is my failure. Provided the void is not so deep that I fall forever, I feel I have no choice but to (eventually) pick myself up and move on; again, knowing, with reasonable certainty, that the failure was mine.

Though enlightening, this realization is not permission for me to simply watch, (be it with amusement, disdain, or apathy), as others leap and fall, failing to reach the fringe of my topography. Typically, those who place their trust in me, do so upon my encouragement. And yes, in some circumstance, they have misjudged and fail, and I can do nothing but watch; compassionately. But if I have encouraged another to make that leap, and I do not work to extend solid ground suitable for a safe landing; or if I do not at the least extend a hand to lessen their leap, then it is also my failure. With that said, some individuals may come to expect an always-available safe landing spot, choose to make their way back across the cleft, and never encourage another to leap safely to their Terra Firma. In some circumstance, though difficult, learning and growth may be best advanced via failure.

This uncertain back and forth is why 1) I must learn to recognize my failure, efficiently pick myself up, and move on; and 2) I must refocus to extend redirected and additional effort leaping toward future faceless individuals who cannot disappoint, hurt feelings, or waste reciprocal time and effort slashing or stroking egos.

"Trust is not a guarantee. By definition, trust is a leap of faith. If I have misjudged, the failure to span the breadth of the abyss is my failure."