Anger Drives The World
G David Schwartz Schwartz

 


If familiarity breeds content, then people have an excuse both to despise themselves and to refuse to investigate their motives and desires. In one context, of either these conclusions virtually forbid any spiritual or religious sensibilities. In another context, either of these conclusions virtually requires an abandonment of political or social pursuits.

Yet the extent to which an individual pursues the excuse offered by the supposed breeding ground for contempt, to that extent, he or she is influence to think. There is a dividing ground between spiritual pursuits and political pursuits. In either or both cases, we are left with an illicit division between the propriety of communion and the proper use of power.

Not only so, but the newfound contentment between the spiritual and the political (both here assumed in the widest sense possible) leads to a (perceived) illicit application of a one-sided �spiritual/ religious (read conservative) intrusion into the political realm at the same time as it leads to a (perceived) illicit application of one-sided �secular� (read: liberal) while each group claims familiarity with the means of the other. What we end up with is a merely commentary ligatures (or at the end, clearly erroneous, lambastes and what, were it not for the earnest insights of each=sided which deserves to pursue better be called lies).

Moderation on both sides of the issue, of course, pursues the coerces of recommending each side become familiar with the intentions of the other side. What is unusual in the moderate course is that an issue has a singe focal point around which combatants enmesh their troops. What the moderator ends up doing, then, is recommending more familiarity between the already contemporary combatants.

Each side is, more or less justified, legitimized to say to the moderate: �But I know their intentions, their ways.� What, indeed, each might know of the other I some few unstated arguments from which either or both groups would benefit if articulated. Reconciled familiarity breeds not contempt, but a renewal of the core issue around which combatants might learn to say of the personality or being of the opposite number: Of, he or she is not so bad after all. He or she is not really just a number. He or she has intentions, which simply require� discussion � exactly and precisely what the assumption of familiarly, without the process, does not allow.

The assumption of familiarity is itself the act of contentment. The process of familiarity, on the other hand, is nothing more, and nothing less than a process of reincarnation. As may be seen in the neutrality accessible characteristics of conservatives and liberal presentations above the process, which occurs through an ever-growing series of distinction and pursuits, which resolutely require we not assume there, is familiarly. In fact, the first assumption in the process which would breed something mere feasible
for both the cogent spirit and the efficacious acts in the real world would be a resounding self-criticism.

The query for familiarity ought to first breed self-criticism. This suggests that familiarity itself can only successfully be obtained in the processes of becoming more familiar with our own intentions and concerns. In fact, for not a few of us, the processes of familiarity in terms of the power of the spirit and the righteous pursuit of social activity, best occurs when we realize that we are not as bad as we thrught.

The ultimate familiarity of the spiritual realm and the practical realm, which is severed and fragmented to the extent that we exclude the other from the other, or exclude that we exclude bearers and agents of �the One,� from �the Other,� precedes throught self-investigation to self-forgiveness to conversation. Dialogue is itself a preparatory step. Having already assumed a self-critical position and a self-forgiving hope, dialogue represents the spiritual and pragmatic means of doing two very different things.

First, we desire to portray our new attitude, our unfamiliarity self to the self-critical, unrecognizable other. We desire verification. We obtain verification, in communication by simply verging the other, and obtaining verification, which might be called �honesty� best proceeded thought distinction which cannot occur when either familiarity or contempt are assumed.


A clear distinction between an issues (never a conglomerate of issues which are erroneous to a worldview) ought to be made distinct from the conversation added to the discussion of the issue by a conversant. This does certainly not mean that we ought distinguish and discuss what the other contributors, which is partisan to an issue, as distinct from what we think is revenant. We ought to expect the same from the other.

When discussing familiarity, for example, we might promote the conversation which assets issues (as well as practices) of enjoinment as well as intimacy, respect and ennoblement. We ought not to be ignorant of the conversation, which could occur around the topic of contempt, but it would seem more worth our while, more cogent, more practical, more worthy, to discuss the ways and means of the more convivial implications, concerns and methods.

There is a wholesome aspect to this Jewish assertion of the prominence of obedience. The knowing if God is intimately connected to any form of knowing. The facts must be asserted and analyzed, in any corporate or personal way. In the absence of facts, or the absence of proper assessment, truth and knowledge are bracketed, as it were. Obedience, however, is an assertion of a perceived meaning. In otherwords, that which is ultimately true is largely unknowable, but meaningful behavioir, which contains certain forms of meaningful behavior, which certain forms of obedience certainly are, is the function of communal perceptions.

It is not my intention to analyze the distinction between obedience as meaningful behavior and obedience as neurotic indulgence or fascist demand. I regard it as evidence those any and all forms of religious behavior, which at least minimally do not destroy the integrity of the individual or physical theater, are meaningful in an assertion of perceived meaning. In otherwords, that which is ultimately true is largely unknowable. But it is still meaningful behavioir, which certain form of obedience certainty are, in function of commercial perception.

It is not my intent to analyze the distinction between obedience as meaningful behavior and obedience as neurotic indigene or fascist demand. I regard it as evident that any and all forms of religious behavioir, which at least minimizes do not destroy the integrity of the individual nor physical theater are meaningful. Political oppression or alienated flight from authentic personality, decision making, and so on, on the other hand, are not �meaningful� in this positive sense but are, as destruction of human behavioir, negative and not meaningful. �Meaning� here means contribution to the assertions of reason, strength, creativity and appreciation, but not satiated behavior which can be appreciated and sought after all reasonable, courageous and creative people.

The above remarks would indicate that I couldn�t accept the opinions of either the fact that the religious person believes in things he cannot see, or that the secularist can have no �explanation� of life. I have never seen my heart, either in actual functioning nor are a X-ray picture and the consciousness during an operation feasible. I do not believe it possible to see a thought. Yet I, and many people who I know, fancy that thought exists.

The religionist and secularist share the fact that both belief and meaning are not derived from �datum� but are at best an assembly of facts. If these data are perceived to change, belief and meaning do not noticeable change, but unfortunately are associated to take a step away from the knowledgeable facts. This is unfortunate because belief and meanings are not dependent upon datum to begin with.

The remarks above seem to indicate that I cannot accept the opinion neither that the religious person believes in things he cannot see, nor that the secularist can have no �explanation� of life. I, myself have never seen my heart, either in actual functioning nor or X-ray. I hope not to see it, although both the X-ray picture and the consciousness, which occurs during the operation, are feasible. Yet I, and many people I know, fancy that thought exists.

Religionists as well as secularists share the fact that both belief and meaning are not derived from �datum� but are at best an assembly of faces. If these data are perceived to change, belief and meaning do not noticeable change, but unfortunately they are asserted to take a step away from knowledgeable facts. This is unfortunate because belief and meaning is not dependant upon one another. Belief and meanings is, in fact, not dependant upon datum to begin with.

This is expressed by Christian attitudes that faith is faith not because of the fact, but in spite of the facts. Likewise, the Jew holds that obedience to Torah is to be enacted in spite of the progress of non-thoracic reality. Neither religious groups denies non-Christian or non-Judaic facts (although Christianity holds the principle that people are carries of facts, ought to be converted.

Likewise, the secularists ought not to be said to be left without an explanation of life because he does not accent the primary �datum� of religion. I have already suggested that God is, by biblical expression and scientific certitude, not knowledgeable. Hence, he cannot be called a fact in the credible sense of the word. God may be believed to be real, to be the object of belief, faith or trust, but he cannot but in the most unbelievable sense be said to be a dining guest, a fried, or an object of study. But we study Gods effects. The efforts are enacted thrught people in their courses thrught history. This adds a touch of penetration to the common saying that God�s ways are deep and inscrutable. A religionist expresses a similar idea with the Keirkagaardian dictum; �God does not exist, he is.�

The discussion thus far suggests that different terms may be used which are congenial to both the religious and non-religious person to unify them in their independence of certain types of facts. The Jewish obedience to Torah and Christian faith are often expressed as �joyful.�

 

 

Copyright © 2003 G David Schwartz Schwartz
Published on the World Wide Web by "www.storymania.com"