In a part, he discusses the notion of the "center." The "center" is something people value most and hold in their core as a determinant of, and as a judgement standard for their actions (this is my understanding, anyway).
In his book, the "center" can be, "Work, family, spouse/husband, friend, religion, self, pleasure, possessions, money, or enemy." I don't think centers are limited to these, but these are listed as examples.
It is an interesting exercise to see which "center" matters most to you. Although they all are important, prioritization is different for each person. This viewpoint can be useful in many ways.
An example of the usage is that if two people have similar prioritization in their centers, the relationship between them can work better. Probably that's why a Christian single tends to seek out a mate among other Christian singles. They are trying to match the prioritization.
I don't think centers are mutually exclusive, but you can certainly treat them that way. A workaholic is a person with a "work" center, and he can neglect family, his spouse, and even himself.
If you focus on only one center, you start losing balance. You consciously or subconsciously base all your judgments on that center. Funny things can happen when you do that. For example, a money-centered person may see everyone from the standpoint of how much money they have or make. It is the one and only representation of the value of others. According to him, someone who makes $5,000/year is literally worthless compared to a billionaire.
How about an exaggerated example? You can try dance-centered. It's a variation of pleasure (or work, if you work in the dance industry) centered. You go to a dance party, see others dance, and how well they dance is your standard of judgement. Only good dancers are valuable to you. People who dance terribly are worthless. It does not matter if he is a good husband, a hard worker, a great friend, or a millionaire. You see him as a terrible dancer, and that's that. He sucks and is worthless. Isn't this weird?
A religious extremest is a religion-centered person. With this only one standard, it is easy for him to see other people as worthless infidels and now he is ready to blow them up. Yikes.
You have your own center. The center is how you judge others, and make yourself worth something. The center is where you focus your efforts on "improvement."
When you choose your center, you choose the rules of the game of your life. If you value how many friends you have on your Facebook, you focus on increasing the number. It matters to you. Others may not care about your rule or the number, but it is your rule. Your satisfaction and happiness depend on how well you do for the center of your choice.
I think the Bible commandment "judge not" is a warning against your neglect of people with different centers. You choose a center and self-impose the associated judgement standards. But your center is not the only one that overrides everything else. Especially, if you start trying to impose your center on others, it is when the trouble starts. It helps to remember that, if you want to be human.
*************************************************************
Today I saw news about a charity walk for Breast cancer (namely the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer in Houston, TX). That kind of fund-raising is very important for getting the research going. According to the American Cancer Society's 2013 statistics (http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-036845.pdf), for all US people the biggest killer cancer is lung cancer (predicted death count in 2013: 159,480), followed by colon cancer (50,830). Breast cancer would kill 40,030. Other major killers include pancreas cancer (38,460), prostate cancer (29,720), and liver cancer (21,670). Allocation of governmental research funding does not necessarily reflect the death number nor is it proportional to the death toll. Public awareness and perception influence fund raising heavily. Mainstream research funding goes to where the importance lies, and importance can change due to the public opinion.
Cancer is a collection of diseases, and some cancers are more difficult to prevent, find or cure. Personally I am hopeful that the difficult cancers can be managed better in the near future. But I am aware that it costs money to keep research going.
Some see this entire cancer research industry as the big-pharmaceutical's greed-driven sham. If it is your belief (i.e. something in your head and perhaps only in your head), you can try some untested folklore remedy like cannabis oil. It may have some scientific basis, like an effective medicine Taxol used to be a folklore medicine. But I don't think you should impose it on others. A major question in basic medical science is "does it work?," and the "work" is measured in terms of percentage. A drug is successful if it can improve the outcome in a statistically significant manner, and it does not mean the drug can save everyone. A part of professional work is to know current situation and expectation, and to work to improve the outcome.
