My
attitudes.
This is my dogma, my epitaph, what I want to
give. It is not pure. It is not cut in stone.
Because I believe I may be wrong about everything,
this is not about what I believe. Rather this is about how I
believe I arrive at my beliefs and how I believe we all arrive at our
beliefs.
How
people know the truth.
We witness our life; that is, we pay attention to
our thinking and doing. We use the left side and the right side
of the brain to remember what we witness. We witness and remember
by rote and we witness and remember by considering how each specific
truth is related to our past witness.
Because we just plain can't remember everything we
have to make some decisions. We have to judge some things are
true in order to function.
We arrive at the truth in four ways.
We guess which always contains doubt. What you
know with doubt is your best guess. It is always the result of
consideration.
We believe what we are told without
consideration. This requires either great naiveté,
absolute belief in an authority or a lack of time or willingness to
consider.
We have an epiphany establishing truth without
doubt. It may be a single event, a series of similar events, a
series of events that appears directed or even years and years of
ongoing meditation experience.
We accept a truth overcoming our doubt by doubting
our doubts according to the instruction of authority and our need for
discipline. This is frequently strengthened by affirming a
declaration. An affirmation simply insists that a declaration is
true without doubt.
This also considers humanity; that is, the knowers
of the truth as integral to the truth. For clarity, “knowers of
the truth” does not refer to a special group of people. Everyone
with belief is a knower of the truth.
In all cases you either accept or you doubt.
I witness my life. Some things I take
for granted. Some things I think about. Some things I
ignore. These things can be words, sensory observations,
epiphanies, feelings or combinations. My life is my witness.
The things I ignore I forget. They never
become part of my witness.
The things I take for granted I call the
truth. They become part of my witness. They are part of my
attitudes. They influence my behavior.
The things I think about I call my
considerations. They influence my attitudes and behaviors.
They are the source of the changes that I can choose.
Discipline, a parameter of witness
Discipline is the boundaries of what you are willing
to think about, the boundaries of the conclusions your thoughts have
led you to and the boundaries of what you are willing to do. That
is; discipline is the boundaries of our considerations, attitudes and
behaviors.
Everything you ignore, have judged to be false, will
not consider or won't do is outside your discipline. Everything
else is inside your discipline.
To better understand the word, consider arithmetic
as a discipline. If you add within the discipline you get the
same answer as everyone else. You think inside the box; that is,
inside the discipline.
Discipline is essential. For example, after
putting your finger in a gas flame once and considering the results you
make the judgment not to do it again. If you did not make that
judgment you would burn yourself over and over and over again.
Your judgment has placed a boundary on your consideration (you will not
consider putting your finger in the flame), your attitude (you believe
you will burn yourself if you put your finger in the flame) and your
behavior (you will not put your finger in the flame).
There is not enough time to consider
everything. Your considerations are disciplined (bounded).
A very realistic example; you're running a little late, your wife calls
and tells you she will not be home from work until late so that you
have to buy some chips for a party that starts at eight. You must
pick up your son from soccer practice at six. You must drop off
your daughter for lacrosse practice at 5:45. You get a call from
a pollster who asks you what you think of the new mayor. You hang
up the phone without consideration.
Your attitudes are bounded by discipline. You
do not find your beautiful sister sexually appealing. It is the
result of the boundaries of your attitudes.
Your behaviors are bounded by discipline. With
exception, you do not break the law.
If you consider nothing, habitually maintain your
attitudes and act only through habit you are self-disciplined.
Most of us go through periods of self-discipline. It is
temporarily comfortable not to think. Self discipline is the
boundary of our considerations.
If you obey your boss, live within the law, believe
what you read, and in general do as you are directed, then you respond
to authority. That is you are socially disciplined. Most of
us are socially disciplined most of the time. Social discipline
is the boundary our society places on our behavior.
If you consider everything, neither accept nor deny
anything, behave according to the moment and lack any fixed attitude,
then you are undisciplined. Almost all of us have our
undisciplined moments.
If you have complete discipline you live with safety
and without consideration. If you have no discipline you live
with complete freedom and danger (You would burn your finger in the gas
flame over and over and over again).
I wish to feel safe and have some freedom.
Within my discipline I can consider all things. Within my
discipline I can roam without fear. By not considering going
outside of my discipline I feel safe. My range of action is
reduced by my discipline for the sake of comfort. My new freedom
although reduced is more comfortable. I think inside the
box. I don't think outside the box.
But thinking is fun. Sometimes I will choose
to reconsider my discipline. I will become momentarily
undisciplined. I will think outside the box.
Habits anchor discipline. Habit reduces
consideration of action outside of our discipline. If you act
completely out of habit you never consider change. Initially
habits are the result of conforming to the forces and morality within
our environment.
To develop discipline form habits. First do
the deed, then do the deed again, and again, and again... until the
thought of not doing the deed disappears. After this happens you
have a habit of doing the deed.
When faced with a consideration don’t do the deed,
then at the next consideration don’t do the deed, and again, and
again... until the consideration of doing the deed disappears.
Now you act out of habit; that is you act without consideration. You
have self-discipline.
If you continue a behavior long enough, it affects
your feelings. An example; you work at a food bank which makes
you feel good which encourages you to work at the food bank. You
have an attitude of charity. Your feelings discipline your
attitudes.
Class; a Hindu view, a parameter
of witness, a social order
Although religious and gov't institutions attempt to
establish and maintain a peaceful order, the population remains
compliant to peace predominantly because it is immersed in an
unquestioned social order.
Unlike the classical Hindu view where you cannot
change the caste into which you were born, I refer to class rather than
caste. It is possible to change your class. In the U.S. all
people are born with equal rights under the law.
The Brahmin class. The Brahmin growing up in
leisure has a chance for enlightenment. His enlightenment gives
him a sense of morality. The most orthodox Brahmin’s behavior is
self-disciplined to eliminate distraction from enlightenment.
Hence he lives in poverty, is obedient to enlightenment and exercises
no authority over others. He lives off the alms of others.
His enlightenment leads to morality.
The ruling class. The ruling class grows up in
a socially disciplined environment of reward and punishment that does
not completely overshadow freedom. Usually their freedom is
obtained by being bright enough to have leisure which leads to self
will. Society succeeds when the ruling class rules disciplined by
law and Brahmin morality. The most orthodox ruler lives in
luxury but is not ostentatious, and applies his authority with ethics.
The professional class. The professional class
grows up in a disciplined environment heavily influenced by reward due
to their own competence at success. Among their duties is the
creation of ethical law. Ethics are applied pragmatic (Brahmin)
morality. They feel successful rather than free. The
society succeeds when the professional class does the intellectual work
without excessive greed. The most orthodox professional lives in
enough luxury to be motivated to continue to obey authority.
The working class. The working class grows up
in a disciplined environment heavily influenced by punishment due to
their own incompetence at success. The society succeeds when
there is enough abundance that the working class has its leisure filled
with enough pleasant activity that they continue to obey the law as
specified by the professional class and demanded by the ruling class
and continue to work. The most orthodox worker prefers to
obey authority rather than be punished.
The untouchable class. The untouchable class
grows up rejecting discipline. They are free. The society
succeeds when they are contained, either in prisons, or through
shunning, or by their own chosen separation from the other
classes. The most orthodox untouchable is kind enough not to hurt
others. As they are the victims of vengeance, they are the source
of revolution. As they are free they are our artists.
Note that the untouchable class and the Brahman
class can be easily mistaken for each other. Hindu order goes
full circle.
The reality is that every person is in part within
every class. For example, I get up and look out the window.
I know it's going to rain (Brahman). I tell my mate it looks like
rain (professional). I tell my children to wear their boots
(ruler). I pack everyone's lunch (worker). I sneak a
doughnut (untouchable). I am loyal to my mate. I had a
little trouble when I was young but hard knocks straighten me out.
This person might describe themselves behaviorally
untouchable, morally professional and historically a worker.
The reality is also that every person generally fits
predominantly in one class. If you are a monk, you are a
Brahman. If you manage a business with employees, you are a
ruler. If you are an architect, you are a professional. If
you work on an assembly line, you are a worker. If you are a sole
proprietor, you are untouchable.
Class is a tool of understanding how and where you
fit in the social structure. It peacefully disseminates authority
without the appearance of authority.
How
beliefs are formed.
If the individual considers before words remains a
question. What he considers before words remains a mystery.
How he considers before words is one of my great curiosities because I
believe that curiosity is gracious (attitudes, behaviors and
considerations without origins from cause are gracious).
Most churches propose that there are two life
forces. Each culture determines what they are called; Yin and
Yang, renewable and non-renewable chi, flesh and spirit, nurture and
nature, good and evil, reality and fantasy, strong force and weak
force.
I like to call them beauty and the beast. They
are the forces that will combine, reform and re-emerge in a class of
adults according to the balance between beauty and the beast.
The beast originates (an internal force) in the will
to live. He needs to eat, drink, sleep and have sex in order to
survive. However the beast is predominantly disciplined by
external force. That is his attitudes, behaviors and
considerations in attaining these needs are bounded by law and
order. The focus is on behavior.
Beauty originates (an internal force) in grace. He
needs to relate in order to survive. Early on beauty is
predominantly disciplined by external force, usually the words of
family and church authority. Later on grace disciplines as
well. Differing from the beast, the discipline focus is on
attitudes (faith) rather than behaviors.
The development of belief follows a path through the
steps of life. Curiosity, identity, family, discovery, knowledge,
wisdom, wonder are the steps of life. Some people skip some
steps. Some people stop and stay in a specific step.
The steps of life; a parameter of
witness, How beliefs are disciplined by growth.
The age of curiosity
A child is born curious. Being curious the
child touches, tastes, hears, smells and sees everything available to
him/her. Having no witness (life experience) the baby is
undisciplined and free to discover his/her body and environment.
The child's needs are all cared for by family.
With the help of mother, sucking produces food produces
satisfaction. The habit of sucking is formed. Many habits
are formed in the same way.
Children are given freedom within safe and
convenient bounds. For safety's sake the child is not allowed to
chew on electrical cords. For convenience sake the child must
learn to sleep through the night. For curiosity sake the child is
allowed to chew all kinds of stuff that's not dangerous during the
day. Except for curiosity, family members (most often his mother)
have complete authority over him.
All the first words are understood basically.
Everything he is told he knows is absolutely true. There is
little contradiction in what he is told. He has attitudes and
behaviors and very few (if any) considerations. When he asks
questions he is given one answer and one rationale. He has no
need to consider. His dominant attitude is to get what he wants.
Broadly, the individual believes that everything he
senses and hears is absolutely true. What he knows is without
consideration. Because he does not consider alternatives he makes
no judgment. What he knows is before judgment; that is,
pre-judgment; that is, prejudice. It differs from grace in that
it has the cause of hearing or sensing. Grace is without cause
while prejudice is with cause.
The child's next environment is the school.
The teacher establishes greater external discipline making the
environment feel safe. She is a new authority.
Now there is a peer group of equals. Being
curious and safe, they are fun. From the lips of a peer he
hears a contradiction to one of his absolute truths.
Somehow he becomes aware that it is a
contradiction. Being curious and aware, he considers (he
thinks). If the consideration lies outside his discipline, he
chooses one view over another or expands his discipline. He may
choose to believe the peer as an authority or he may choose to believe
a specific truth. If the consideration is within his discipline,
driven by his internal curiosity he continues to consider the accuracy
of the authority and the specific truth. This is the beginning of
judgment.
Practicing curiosity becomes consideration.
Through consideration he discovers that other people have different
beliefs. Through consideration he can put himself in their
shoes. If he tries to think like they think he not only considers
their ideas but he may become considerate of the authority of
others. He may even become considerate of others. This is
beauty coming into being.
But the maturation clock is ticking. Beauty
only gets a beginning.
The age of identity
Along comes puberty and drives the child into
becoming a girl or boy.
It manifests as an obsessive compulsive behavior
(sex drive). Without discipline it would be an obsessive
compulsive disorder. He needs to know who he is. He needs
to know what he wants. He must find an identity.
To find his identity he tries on the identity of
others. One week your teenager dresses and behaves one way, in
the next week another. Considerations are resolved by arguments,
some internal. Advice to parents; when your teenager becomes
unbearable be grateful you don't have to be one again.
The burden of constant consideration forces
judgments. He chooses which rationales to believe.
Eventually boys and girls find themselves and what they want in a mate;
they find their ego, an identity shaped by curiosity, maturation and
environment. It is an identity arrived at through consideration
and judgment.
The beast, the need to procreate, has come alive.
The beast justifies his actions according to Nietzsche's, “if you have
the power you have the right“. But reward and punishment
(external discipline) have shaped the beast. If successful the
beast is obedient to the more powerful yielding authoritative order.
With the beast the fit of us survive. There is
selection before procreation. The beast is the idiot who serves
the id, his base taste, and, in its service, survives.
From the age of curiosity beauty, expressed as the
need to relate, survives.
From the balance between the need to have sex and
the need to relate (beauty and the beast) comes love. Then time
consuming family interrupts the investigation of the self.
Some remain self centered and self absorbed, never
surrendering to the need to relate (teenagers forever).
The age of family
Families (with exception) have babies. Then
this happens. You're running a little late, your wife calls and
tells you she will not be home from work until late so that you have to
buy some chips for a party that starts at eight. You must pick up
your son from soccer practice at six. You must drop off your
daughter for lacrosse practice at 5:45.
The functioning family has little time for much
else. Behavior is dominated by routine (habits). Attitudes
are fixed. Consideration is disciplined because there is no time
for new thoughts.
The couples act out the roles learned from their
culture during the age of identity including the highly time consuming
roles of bread winning and child rearing. They come to feel they
belong with each other and their children in their defined roles in
their defined society.
In most families their beliefs remain fixed because
they are busy raising their children. Whatever authorities they
respected they continue to respect. It is an intellectually
stagnant time.
Some couples do not have children. Some others
do not find mates. They find a substitute obsession. Some
become saints, politicians, pet owners, workaholics, alcoholics,
sexaholics, over eaters, adventurers, et al. Some may even become
obsessed by discovery. They play out the identity they have
chosen.
With or without children many people never leave the
age of family. Whether happy or sad with their life they choose
to stay there forever. 100 years ago few people lived past the
age of family.
Eventually the family is grown and/or the obsession
is satisfied or climaxed. There is time to think and consider and
discover. Sometimes there's a lot of consideration and sometimes
just a little.
The age discovery
What can you do with freedom? You can
reconsider.
The process of discovering, used throughout their
life, is noticed, appreciated and used. Everything from art to
physical intimacy is rediscovered and reconsidered. Everything is
discovered to have an essence of beauty.
In contrast to the age of identity where you knew
little to nothing, you now have a history of witness. You see
contradictions. There are competing authorities. There are
competing rationales. Rather than copying the conclusions of
authorities, you think for yourself.
It is a time of reconsideration, the time to look at
your past and reflect on what you wish your future to be.
For those that find it in their taste, appreciation
of beauty and enlightenment are reestablished. For those that
find it in their taste, greed is established. For most there is a
new balance between beauty and the beast.
Discipline is redistributed and/or reduced.
There is experimentation within new boundaries. There is more
variety of behavior. Attitudes change. Reconsideration
creates doubt. Doubt changes absolute truths to best guesses.
Self judgments are made. Unwanted obsessive
compulsive behaviors are displaced, replaced, eliminated or
disciplined.
There are many results. Divorces happen, not
all bad. New careers begin, not all good. Midlife crisis
happens, not all bad. New religious convictions are discovered,
not all good.
The need for order leads to the need for discipline
leads to the habit of doubting our doubts. If we understand the
process we can once again walk in another's shoes for in doubting our
doubts we had to embrace another view.
The need to make sense of the discoveries develops
understanding. Understanding turns discovery into knowledge.
What else can you do with freedom? There are
things to see and do. For as long as their bodies hold up
memories can be built. Old disciplines can prevail. You
need not reconsider. You can skip the age of discovery.
Many do.
The age of knowledge
If you live long enough and see enough things you
believe you know things. You do.
After witnessing years of rainfall, you know the
water flows downhill. After reading many books, you know the
water flows to the ocean. After teachers explain it to you, you
understand the water cycle. After giving respect to selected
authorities you know that carbon dioxide emissions are having a bad
effect on the water cycle even if you don't understand the arguments.
Some people learn and remember by organizing what
they know. They know a lot generally though they may be weak on
specifics. An organized memory makes them more efficient.
They take pride in what they know. Their considerations become
more disciplined to preserve their pride and their efficiency.
Some people learn predominantly by rote rather than
organization. Because they practice little reconsideration their
beliefs are strengthened during the age of knowledge. After
having copied the reasons of others what were prejudices become
judgments. They take pride in their learned arguments and
judgments. Their considerations become more disciplined to
preserve their pride and help their memory.
They incorporate knowledge into their lives.
With well bounded considerations, fixed attitudes and habitual behavior
they feel pride when they share what they know with others.
Eventually most people discover and acknowledge
their own mistakes. The belief in what they know is
diminished. They are humbled. Humility turns knowledge into
wisdom.
Most people have some beliefs without doubt.
In these areas they never become wise, merely knowledgeable.
There are those who never acknowledge error.
They have no humility. Without humility they never become wise.
The age of wisdom
With time comes understanding of knowledge born of
finding errors in your own guesses. Unlike knowledge, where there
was a burden of disbelief to each opposing fact, with wisdom you can
honestly extend the benefit of doubt. Doubt changes faith into
hope and prejudice into judgment.
Once you understand that knowledge is dependent upon
yourself and gain tolerance for each individuals understanding of the
same knowledge you become wise. Wisdom requires
understanding yourself and the world with doubt and respect.
It is also possible to arrive at the age of wisdom
without ever gaining knowledge. Discovery can be so fulfilling
the judgment is not necessary. Hence there is always doubt and
respect attached to every discovery.
Being considerate becomes more important as being
right becomes less important.
You begin to believe you have considered
everything. Life becomes boring. You need new
thoughts. The boundaries of consideration need expanding.
But now the answers are unimportant. Questions are everything.
Creating questions rather than answers turns wisdom
into wonder.
The age of wonder
After living long enough it becomes apparent that
you can not know or control anything. There is no choice but to
trust in tomorrow. The smaller you make yourself the easier it
is. The more peace in your heart, the more comfortable it
is. Without the need for fear there is no fear. Finally
without fear it is enough to wonder.
Wonder is the reward of fearless curiosity. I
wonder what comes next.
Three kinds of truth; postulating
order to belief.
First, there is the truth with doubt. It is
called your best guess. This kind of truth is the source of most of the
proposed principles.
The strength of your conviction, the importance of
that conviction and the relevance of the conviction determines whether
it is worth mentioning in the game. For example if we are talking
about abortion, then when your church believes life begins needs
stating. Whether the icecaps are receding or not may
be important but it is not relevant. Who wins the World Series
(to most of us) is unimportant.
Then there are those weak convictions that give us
so much trouble. Assume your church has a position on the damage
done to the woman who has an abortion (vs. the woman who gives her
child way). You agree predominately because you are in the
church, yet you have much doubt. It is important and it is
relevant but your conviction is weak. You have your best guess
but it is too weak to fit the category of truth. It is best to
continue the consideration rather than declare that a weak conviction
is a principle.
Second, there is the agreed to truth. It is
called the common truth.
Every common truth is only true within the group
that accepts it. For example, a group that is debating abortion
under the law may not agree that life begins at conception but they can
agree that most prolifers found their position on the belief that
sanctified life begins at conception.
Third, there is the truth without doubt. It is
called the absolute truth.
As an example assume that you and I just shared a
slice of apple pie. We both agree that we just shared a slice of
apple pie. Because we agree, it is a common truth. Because
we have no doubt, it is an absolute common truth between us.
Bob enters the room and asks us who ate the slice of
apple pie? We tell him. The three of us have a common truth
but Bob did not witness the eating and has a slight doubt (maybe he saw
someone else eating a slice of apple pie and knows we are
forgetful). Common truth is enough.
In some cases some feel the common truth is not
enough. They point out that there is something about the absolute
nature of God. A translation of the “Tao Te Ching, One “through
“ten thousand things” agrees with this view;
One
“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;...”
My taste agrees with their taste and there are no
words to describe it. I do not deal with this Absolute
truth. I feel there is no need. Herein lies the problem.
The trouble with the truth
There is no universal common absolute truth because
there is no one commonly accepted absolute authority. There is no
universal common truth because there exists mutually exclusive absolute
truths. Hence there is no universal dogma.
This neither denies nor accepts universal absolute
truth. As already stated, I do not deal with universal absolute
truth. Reiterating, it does deny universal common absolute truth.
Illustrations of “truth”
“If a person jumps off a 40-story building that is
completely surrounded by a concrete parking lot without the support of
aids (such as a parachute), then he will die. “ Is this a
universal common truth?
There is probably a person (maybe he lives in an
institution) who believes that he will fly rather than die (maybe he
believes in time of need his angel will save him). Therefore,
though it may be a broadly accepted common truth, it is not universal.
I would point out that Galileo recanted from his
outrageous lie that “the earth is round”. Galileo was a minority
of one and comparable to a man who thinks he can fly. What has
changed is that the size of the group believing Galileo’s truth has
greatly increased in recent years.
A wealth of scientific “facts” falls into this
category. The size of the group believing determines the relative
strength of the truth rather than the validity of the truth. That
remains a judgment of each individual.
A second illustration believed by a majority of
children. “Santa Claus brings Christmas gifts. “ There
probably was a Santa Claus, Saint Nicholas, who is credited with
re-starting the fad of giving gifts at Christmas. So there is a
sense of truth in what most adults believe to be a literal lie.
Besides, the children may be correct and the adults have simply screwed
up the whole matter.
Those that know they may be wrong about everything
know that some man might be able to fly and that the children might be
right about Christmas. Those that insist they know something can
extend the benefit of doubt to children everywhere.
Once again, going back to the beginning; how do people come to know the
truth?
"We accept authority overcoming our doubt by
doubting our doubts according to the instruction of authority and our
need for discipline." We choose authority according to our
class progressing through the steps of life. Almost everyone forms the
majority of their beliefs in this fourth way.
Influence
within humanity; postulating an order to the strength of influence.
We've looked at the parameters that shape each
individual's beliefs. Now we must put order to understanding how
we influence each other.
Most people believe that some of their dogma is the
universal dogma. Conflicting dogmas (the messages) do not kill
each other. People (the messengers) kill each other.
Whether political, ethical or religious, dogmatic
demands to influence other groups (individuals) cause turmoil.
The level of influence is a parameter of the amount of turmoil
generated by one group (individual) acting against another.
It should be noted that turmoil is as often the
precursor of understanding as it is the precursor of violence.
Conceal, expose, attract,
promote, threaten, force, violate.
These are the levels of an individual’s influence upon others.
To conceal your life. The completely concealed
person has no influence on others and is uninfluenced by other
people. Such a person is said to be cloistered.
A cloistered monk who vows to be silent and live in
isolation is the extreme of concealment. More normally, people
who do not answer questions or state their positions conceal themselves.
When you answer questions you leave concealment and
enter exposure.
To expose your life. You let people see how
you live. You answer questions with the purpose of being
understood.
When you initiate talk you leave exposure and enter
attraction.
To attract others. You do or say some things
with the purpose of gathering others to you. You not only answer
questions, you ask questions. You state your beliefs without
solicitation. You try to make friends.
When you talk with the purpose of convincing others
to believe as you believe you leave attraction and enter promotion.
To promote your choices. You give rewards for
alliances. Whether it's candy or a bonus for a job well done, it
shapes the behavior of another person. Praise is often
effective. Praise backed by candy or a bonus is even more
effective.
You advertise your beliefs. You speak of the
advantages and rewards of your beliefs. You speak of the
disadvantages of opposing beliefs.
When you talk with the purpose of making others
afraid not to join your view, then you leave promotion and enter threat.
To threaten others. To speak of the fear of
punishment is to threaten others. Penal law is a threat.
Contracts with penalty clauses are a threat. Holy books that
promise damnation for nonconformity are a threat. To demand
conformity on the job is a threat. To speak of awful consequences
is a threat.
When the talk ends and the process to deliver
conformity or punishment begins, then you leave threat and enter force.
To force others. Punishment induces discipline
into the child (teaching" boundaries of behavior). This
"disciplining" is how other people (society) shape each individual's
discipline.
To sue or prosecute is to force. To fire from
a job is to force. To persecute is to force. To restrict or
confine is to force. To physically abuse is to force. To
rape is to force.
When force fails and failure is unacceptable, then
you leave force and enter violation.
To violate others. You kill the
messenger. You kill another human being. You make war.
The purpose of peacemaking conversation is fulfilled
by an end to violation and the indiscriminate use of force.
Responses to influence
Sometimes I choose my level of influence and
sometimes the society chooses for me.
When a decision is a response to exposure or
attraction, then it is a free choice. Sometimes a free choice is
a response to an epiphany or to grace resulting from concealment.
It is beautiful.
When a decision is not an individual choice, then it
is placed upon an individual by another individual or society using
promotion, threat, force and sometimes violation. The decision is
to obey authority. It is of the beast.
In all cases a decision is a choice people make by
accepting a discipline when consideration is judged an unwanted or
unbearable burden.
Examples
A free choice of a cloistered monk forsaking the
unwanted temptation of worldly distraction for the sake of
enlightenment is beautiful. A free choice of a Muslim woman
forsaking her influence for the sake of her husband’s is beautiful.
Reality is seldom so pure. The level of
influence is usually a matter of the balance between beauty and the
beast; a balance between freedom and obedience; a balance between civil
liberties and general welfare.
When we cloister our children we place a social
discipline upon them. It is not of their choosing. It is a
temporary measure legally ended by their adulthood. Parents
allege that it is for their children’s good. The legality of it
in the United States is a matter of law.
When a man cloisters his wife he places a social
discipline upon her. He alleges that it is for the society’s
good. The legality of it in Saudi Arabia is a matter of law.
Both examples of cloistering are generally bounded
by threat for the law seldom intervenes.
A man robs a store in the United States.
After due process he is put into jail. The force of the state cloisters
him.
In Afghanistan a woman purposefully exposing her
face would be killed. So would a robber. The state, being
poor, has no time or money to spend on any process and solves the
problem efficiently by killing. Killing is a violation by the
state.
In the United States a serial killer after due
process would be killed. Killing is a violation by the
state. If the serial killer had been in England he would be
cloistered in jail instead.
Different cultures and different governments
establish different levels of influence. The process due is
probably established by the level of affluence within the culture for
with enough to go around we all want to protect our civil
liberties. The right to influence other countries is determined
by the balance between the beast (if you have the power you have the
right) and beauty (morality).
Morality gone amok is dangerous. View the
crusades. I would suggest that a humble morality would be more
akin to peace on earth. Let’s talk, not fight.
Judging
the importance of truth
Every message comes with a messenger. Each
"truth" comes with the perspective of human judgment. To play you
must tolerate ideas and accept people.
Tolerate the message, a player
parameter
Sometimes it is possible to extend the benefit of
doubt.
For example let us consider a non affirmed
declaration. It expresses a judgment of the truth.
This judgment is based on the messenger's witness, each witness of his
or her own life. If the messenger recognizes the possibility of a
different conclusion based on a different experience, then frequently
he can extend the benefit of doubt. Contradiction to what you
know with doubt is easy to tolerate.
To tolerate another's absolute truth is more
difficult. However, sometimes some basic agreement can be found.
For example consider the affirmed declaration, “The
Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao”. By being nameless
the meaning of the eternal Tao is exchanged by basic
definition. By recognizing the inadequacy of words we can
transcend our individual witness and agree that what you mean when you
say "God" and I mean when I say "Tao" might be common. Though our
individual witness is different we recognize a common attraction of
"goodness". We recognize that we might share some common
feelings. By understanding that we have common agreeable feelings
difference in detail can be tolerated.
To tolerate another's contradictory absolute truth
is even more difficult.
For example consider "a leap of faith". The
leap puts reason aside in favor of a belief of pragmatic purpose.
The person from the church of science says, "You
cannot put reason aside". You might ask where the person from the
church of science acquired his belief in reason other than that he
finds it pragmatically useful. As an example you might ask the
reason to conclude that time is linear and independent other than that
it is a pragmatically useful assumption.
When another player exposes an absolute belief that
contradicts one of your absolute beliefs, you must establish agreement
in principle; that is "I believe A and you believe not A". Then
you must bear the burden of giving an equal weight to the opposing
belief.
The result of toleration is understanding rather
than agreement. This is what it means to tolerate ideas.
Accept the messenger, a player
parameter
"Judge not that ye not be judged". Though this
serves pragmatic purpose it is not enough to play the game of
peacemaking conversation. Rather, let grace be your motivation
not to judge other people rather than the pragmatic purpose of not
being judged. This is what acceptance is.
To accept people without reason (starting from
nothing) is to be gracious. To do this you must trust that the
player believes what he says is true. This is the way to accept
other people.
When you bear the burden of giving an equal weight
to an opposing belief, then you accept the player who has that belief
as equal. You respect his beliefs. This is what acceptance
is.
Solutions
The Muslim solution, isolation
If you find you cannot bear the burden of giving
equal weight to an opposing absolute belief, then the Muslim solution
is for you.
It says in the Quran, the believers, “unbelievers, I
do not serve what you worship, nor do you serve what I worship. I
shall never serve what you worship, nor will you ever serve what I
worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.”
This ends any conflict before it begins by keeping
the parties isolated.
I am not a purest. I don't know anyone who
is. We choose which beliefs to cloister and which to share.
If there is a purest whose every declaration is an affirmation, the
second church is not for him/her. Yet the Muslim solution is.
The Muslim solution creates no peace. On the
other hand it creates no war. It ceases working when the isolation is
violated.
We live in a densely populated highly communicating
world. Isolation is nearly impossible to maintain.
An alternate solution,
conversation
I once believed in argument for the sake of
truth. Now I believe in conversation between accepting tolerant
people of different churches for the sake of understanding.
Argument has use within a fixed dogma of a specific
church because it frequently arrives at a common truth within the dogma
of the church. Even argument between churches, though seldom
establishing broad common belief, can establish some common rationales
and rationalizations. It has some use in understanding.
Conversation has the advantage over argument because
its purpose is understanding. Comparing our dogmas can lead us to
finding how our individual beliefs are the same and how they are
different. We can reduce our fear of each other by discovering
and sharing our similarities. This leads to accepting people
whose judgments are different. Right and wrong reduces to a
matter of individual judgment rather than absolute judgment.
I believe the conversation is best framed by using
the dogma of the second church and the tools of peacemaking
conversation.
My attitudes;
Peacemaking conversation must be open conversation.
Speak the truth as you guess it and listen as it is
guessed. Declare what you know without judgment while affirming
nothing.
Talk of the message and never the messenger.
That is; accept people and tolerate their ideas.
Play fair. It is fair to call a killing a
killing. To call a killing a murder or a necessity is a judgment.
Attempt to consider all that you can. Never
claim universal absolute truth. Put exclusions aside. Be
dedicated to finding common ground. Speak the useful truth, never
the abusive truth.
How much to speak and when to
stop speaking
For the sake of peace on earth I will bear some
burden and share my views with others who may have different
views. I will consider the views proposed that are outside my
discipline. Such conversation is not always peaceful yet
its purpose is to make peace. In these conversations only when
consideration is an unbearable burden will I choose discipline.
Sacred cows, those judgments we have made sacred,
abound! When I find your sacred cow if (and only if) it is
necessary for understanding will I speak my contrasting view
once. There will be no need to repeat it.
Consider my belief that abortion is a good
thing. I do not wish to condone the opposing view by my
silence. I want the opposition to know my reasons. If my
loved ones need to express their reasons opposing abortion I will
listen and try to understand. I will expect them to listen to
mine and try to understand in exchange. However, telling my loved
ones my view with the reasons for my view one time is sufficient for
understanding our contrasting positions. This failing, there is
always hypocrisy.
A third alternative, tolerance
for hypocrisy
A lie is an untruth told with the purpose of
deception. Bob tells a child that god created people. Joe
tells the same child that people evolved from monkeys. Joe
believes that Bob has told the child an untruth with the purpose of
deceiving the child. Bob believes that Joe has told the child an
untruth with the purpose of deceiving the child. Assuming that
creation and evolution are mutually exclusive and important, either Bob
or Joe has lied and the lie is significant. Here is where we need
hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is necessary when isolation has been put
aside and conversation has taken place and the integrity of the
messenger rather than the message has become the issue.
There is always a messenger and that messenger may
be a loved one. With toleration for hypocrisy you get to keep the
loved one.
As previously stated by accepting people you must
trust that the player believes what he says is true. When you
cannot do this; that is, when you believe that another person is
telling a lie, than settle for hypocrisy.
It helps to recognize the possibility that your
beliefs may be so ingrained that you are the liar. By recognizing
that you may be lying to yourself you can recognize that the alleged
hypocrite may be lying to himself. This levels the playing field.
When you cannot extend the benefit of doubt, that is
when you cannot exclude yourself from being the hypocrite, you must
carry the burden of your intolerance. That is not to act on it.
The value of hypocrisy is that it delays
action. By tolerating the hypocrisy, itself, both players can
reduce their level of influence below threat. This avoids threat,
force and violation.
This gives us the time to become tolerant.
Maybe hypocrisy gives us the time to reduce our own fear.
It is easier to reduce your level of influence when
not afraid. At a reduced level of influence the need of fear is
reduced and, hypocrisy aside, through conversation differences can be
transcended and similarities can be discovered.