In part 1 we looked at different explanations for how I thought of this solution.  We left off with the question of which explanation was true? Was it God?  Was it fate, or just luck? Or did my choices bring me here?

As a mathematician and problem solver, these ways of looking at it are equivalent to me. They all accurately describe what happened, just from different contexts.

But which one feels most real? Try to remember- I’m a mathematician and problem solver. What feels most real is that my feelings about these don’t reveal the truth. In fact, I can immerse myself into any one of them and feel it’s completely true. I really see them as equivalent.

And perhaps that’s how God made me, with this ability to change perspectives with ease. It was just luck that I was taking a course about looking newly at life. It was my fate to see that I was resigned about politics, and my resignation supports the status quo with all its problems. I began to explore politics and teased apart its inner patterns. Then I chose to dedicate my life to bringing the solution to the world. And luckily, I had a few months of savings to fund this “time off” (though not enough to hire anyone.)

To me, it’s at least ironic that this ability to change interpretations easily makes me ideally suited, in some ways, to build this political solution. Though I have political bias from my upbringing and the society where I live, I can see that it’s just bias. So I can let it go and become non-partisan. And that’s a requirement for PeopleCount to succeed.

In part 3, we’ll further explore my ability to see from different points of view, to its conclusion.