Speaking of lawyers, when Brian was in law school, he participated in an exercise called “Moot Court.” The exercise consisted of arguing both sides of a controversial case. Many students really struggle with this exercise. For example, as a prosecuting attorney arguing for Charles Manson’s guilt, and then as a defense attorney arguing for his innocence. For many, many people, and even attorneys, that kind of mental flexibility is literally “asking too much.” What is Creator’s perspective on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of this exercise? And why is this such a struggle for so many?

The reason this is a struggle is very revealing. People are not necessarily who they believed themselves to be. In actuality, every human being is a collection of many, many inner beliefs at multiple levels of the mind, often differing with one another and not necessarily appreciated and observed to exist but nonetheless are influencing things indirectly in how the life goes forward, and in what ways, if at all. The reality of existence is that beliefs are the hardwiring of the mind and will determine automatically much of what a person is capable of doing and often whether they act at all. People are not just a sum of likes and dislikes determining their direction, choice of careers, who they associate with, and so on. They might analyze things as a series of choices with degrees of palatability and perceived value, but those judgments are based on hard and fast rules deeply carved in stone as beliefs that will govern what is even possible. This is why people can vary so greatly, and what to one person is their life dream they will revel in doing, another might find appalling, and following that path and where it leads will be deeply troubling and ultimately impossible to manage. This is why people are so difficult to deal with, because their beliefs get in the way of being flexible, adaptable, to some degree fluid, at least on a provisional basis, to test out something one is unsure of and then perhaps embrace it if it proves to be successful and harmless in its outcome while bringing about some kind of advance in the range of possibilities. This is what is going on with the naysayers; they are signaling their inner beliefs that constitute a hard line in the sand; they will not waver, tolerate, let alone change to embrace an opposite perspective—that can be a lifelong enterprise to bring about a fundamental change. This is why clashes of ideology, religious fundamentalism, divergent political views, and cultural backgrounds are often impossible to reckon with through compromise and tolerance but descend into increasing points of friction, mutual loathing, distrust, and intolerance of the other's existence, forcing a hard boundary to separate what become, ultimately, warring factions. This is the basic mechanism behind the problems of the world, the endless warring parties on small and large scale from an individual level to geopolitical disputes, making enemies of one another, leading to warfare. People vary to what extent they can tolerate others of differing perspectives. Strong inner beliefs may well limit the flexibility to mount credible argument for or against a particular subject if it conflicts with one's own internal beliefs. This is a very complex matter and it is not easy to tell where people are in terms of their inner divine alignment when called upon to be a devil's advocate. To some extent this is not a theoretical contest at all being described, but to make it a real-world issue means reckoning with soul attributes that confer aspects of character that will soften rough edges, make people more flexible, more willing to find common ground than absolute and arbitrary distinctions which might be important to winning an argument in court but seen by others who are more sympathetic as being harsh and categorical. We have made the observation many times that language itself is a poor medium for conveying important meanings with an overlay of external criteria, such as being forced to embrace perspectives handed to you by another, with an expectation to embrace them personally for purposes of mounting an argument. This is not a natural act, but someone who is mature, wise in the way of the world, and well-balanced emotionally, will be able to conduct such an exercise more successfully than someone who lacks a depth of character. So this comes down to a sort of irony about life, that those in divine alignment, with great depth of character, will enjoy a much greater wherewithal in every respect than someone who lacks such inner balance. It is the soul that will save you from wretched excess and exploiting the weakness of others if you are endowed with spiritual blessings. Having a keen intelligence but a lack of scruples might enable you to be a successful and quite powerful attorney as an advocate for others. But, as most people come to know as they mature, such roles can be carried out with great honor and dignity or with shocking levels of immorality.