Posted by Johnboy on January 25, 1999 at 14:28:51:
why do some primarily experience compassion and solidarity and e pluribus unum and all manner of inclusivism while others primarily experience alienation and separateness (and i think of Hoffer's true believers and Tillich's false ultimacies) and all manner of nationalism, imperialism, hegemony and exclusivism ?
i think of all the nature-nurture interplays, of all the manifold and varied ethical systems and formative spiritualities (one and the same? yes and no), of all the human growth stage theories (piaget, kohlberg, erikson, loevinger, fowler, maslow ad infinitum), of the noble truths, the eightfold path and the threefold ways (purgative, illuminative & unitive) and of the untold number of other paradigms that attempt to "position" individual human beings like some celestial global-positioning-system. i think of the broad spectrum of ideologies and ecclesiologies and of Stendl-Rast's explication of the mystical core of organized religion (to which i'd add the existential core of the universal ethic).
in my bad moments i have been tempted to construct my own "Grand Unified little Paradigm" (for which "gulp" is both the acronym and negative visceral reaction) and in my worst moments i have attempted to use either my own paradigm or these other phase-theory contrivances to look outward and to identify my own or others' positions as we ascend mt. carmel or i use them to look inward for clues elucidating which interior mansion i may occupy;
i think that it may be in my better moments that i approach myself and others as ethical paradoxes and spiritual enigmas, as schroedinger's cats who will never be found inside the "stage theories-box", as heisenbergian "objects" which will be changed even by my very attempts to "study" them
all of the psychological stage theories and life-phase paradigms and formative ethical systems and transformative spiritualities and theological constructs and ethical formulations are well-deserving of construction as we study humanity, collectively, but require cataclysmic deconstruction as we "study" (or preferably interact with) human beings, individually; that is why i feel led to kill the Buddha (or the Carmelite) on the road if i should meet him
in each human being we encounter a depth dimension that raises our suspicions about whether or not we ontologically correspond to some immanent being and
in each human encounter there is an implicit horizon confrontation (or boundary experience) of profound mysterium which makes us wonder about whether or not we will teleologically have a rendezvous with some transcendent being
the above-described dynamics, to me, are reminiscent of the kataphatic and apophatic approaches to and by ultimate reality and, i believe, the kataphatic-apophatic dynamism is prescriptive for how we might authentically encounter another "mere" human being
i feel that there are manifold efficacious paths to compassion and solidarity, or ... to what you called "positive interaction and understanding" and as i consider what these paths might be
i think of William James' "once, born" and "twice born" and suggest that the "once born" among us have been gifted with good nature, good nurture, good formation and good cooperation with grace and have come to compassion via a somewhat kataphatic or "via positiva" route and that
the "twice born" among us have been gifted with a via negativa, one or more "road to Damascus" experiences which have caused us to hit bottom whereupon we have our narrow world views deconstructed all toward the end of an apophatic-like surrender of what we thought were our ethical sight-faculties but which had us blinded to our human solidarity
whatever the route to solidarity and compassion, we come to recognize, perhaps, that it is "I" who fail to interact positively and "I" who do not understand; i then realize that I am great, precisely in my weakness, and I am rich only because I am aware of my utter impoverishment ... and i don't offer this as a poetic nicety or a reiterative kenosis apologetic but to reinforce the notion that there is some grasping and clutching and clinging to preconceived notions and stereotypes and world views of which i wish to be dispossessed that i might overcome my own alienation(s) and resultingly become "great and rich" vis a vis the Gospel paradox
perhaps, like the twice-born David, purely gifted, we have a sudden crystallization when someone tells us: "That Man is You" or
perhaps like James' "once born" we arrive at compassion and empathy, purely gifted, through processes which, just so happened for this person or that, were a tad more formative than deformative
whatever the route, the transformative efficacies occasionally produce a saint, a mystic, a hero, an icon ...maybe some believe, as i do, that these transformative efficacies produce billions of saints, mystics, heroes and worthy icons ...
some of us saintly cookies must be baked in the transformative oven longer, that's all (and perhaps in most cases, but certainly not in all, how long we stay in the oven is not due to merit or lack thereof but to Scott Peck's overdetermined conditions).
compassion perhaps gets a hold of us rather than vice versa and this happens, for some, sooner rather than later, but not to worry as the difference between the most virtuous and the most sinister is not even discernable (save to God alone)
it is utterly mysterious and the implications for dialogic processes are that our agapic and altruistic agenda can be further fueled by an erotic quest; restated, we will come together and dialogue not just to formulate a global ethic but also because it is wonderful and life-giving to swim in the unfathomable depths of the mystery of other human beings
i am not at all certain that, perhaps, dialogue does not rightly become an end unto itself
where the "being together" (REALLY being together) becomes more important than whatever it is we happen to be "doing together"
maybe dialogue becomes an end unto itself ?and
if "We see interpersonal relationships as collaborative efforts in constructing values (Walter Anderson)" then we can, at the same time, also see interpersonal relationships as ends unto themselves.
absolutizing is indeed perilous, but where do we get the idea that it may be perilous?
perhaps what we are doing is not moving toward the manufacturing of a global ethic but rather we are trying to discover the pre-existing global ethic
perhaps what will happen is that, when we realize we have "come together" to delve into the mystery of that ethic (presuming that that ethic is written on the hearts of those who have bothered to come together in the first place), we will of a sudden realize that that's all there really is to it! fait accompli ...
IOW, the very fact that we will have come together, with that most incredible presumption that there is a mysterious depth dimension in our fellow human beings worthy of endless exploration, will itself be that which "we are trying to achieve" and
IOW, the very fact that we will have come together will itself be that which "we are trying to achieve" and
once we recognize the validity of this presumption, we needn't come together to work to achieve solidarity, we will have merely discovered our solidarity
we will then be able to sit there in the silence , in awe and reverence of one another, and then afterwards, we will return *home* and nourish ourselves from the wells of our deep traditions
in all of this, again, might there not have been an ipso facto ethical attainment embodied in the very act of coming together to dialogue?
finally, we will not seek enlightenment for ourselves but out of compassion for others and we will not seek the summit of carmel so as to gain consolations but so as to gain the strength to serve and we won't gather for dialogue without achieving eucharist in the very fact of our gathering, a gathering which, at dismissal, will send us forth to love and serve others (however explicit or implicit our faiths, however concerned we may be about our ultimacies) and all of these activities & orientations will be rewards in and of themselves