W.C.
10th May 2011, 12:16
It takes a great intellect to be able to entertain an idea without fully accepting it. When views solidify, one becomes almost fanatical in ones belief to the point of insanity; as if any notion of opposition to their thought is below, incoherent to them.
I have recollections of old friends of whom I was very fond attempting to propound this idea, and watching how others with more solid stances would throw about their toys to the point they were almost squirming. It is of little doubt this is unapparent and even outside of consideration to the said fanatics, but on they go; on and on, stuck in a cycle of opposition purpertuating itself, rather than flowing, and striving for understanding.
It is by no means a new concept. Language (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19790-Language) differs, but the meaning is there:
In Buddhism, knowledge is regarded as an obstacle to understanding, like a block of ice that obstructs water from flowing. It is said that if we take one thing to be the truth and cling to it, even if truth itself comes in person and knocks at our door, we won't open it. For things to reveal themselves to us, we need to be ready to abandon our views about them.
Of course, opposition can also be a wonderful tool in reconnecting minds to the flow of understanding. As opposition tends to perpetuate itself, people are more inclined to discuss things when they feel their view is being directly opposed. When this becomes a tool, is the point at which one has to think and challenge ones own view to challenge another's... and then it clicks, as they say.
One doesn't need to look all that far to find examples (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?20169-The-sensitivity-of-language-and-people-when-describing-race-related-issues) of this. I recall a an example an old friend wrote, during a particular to and fro of opposition:
You know ZA reads stuff and finds it interesting, sees enough evidence to become more or less convinced, and then gets angry at those who don't see it. He points to "facts" and gets frustrated when we don't acknowledge the facts or don't seem to care as much as he does. There is nothing wrong with any of that.
It happens with religion. It happens with crime and subjugation. It happens. But we can't forget their heart is in the right place.
When I was first married I had tons of Rabbis coming at me with some very decent arguments for things that suggest the authenticity of the Torah. They sounded a lot like ZA: "Read a book – then I'll take you seriously." But they lied. I read some books and came back with more skepticism. The answer?
"Read more books. Or read the same books again. Keep going back until you see what I see."
They see me today as a lost lamb, bulwarked behind my wanton ignorance, my laziness to read every book and study every line of Talmud and read all the commentaries and then actually try some of their versions of Orgone, like wrapping tefillin or davening. "You have to live it in order to comprehend it," they say.
In the end, it is not my laziness, my ignorance, or my cowardice that keeps me from believing in or caring about whether some God wrote some book or whatnot.
The Rabbis will sigh and go over it again. "You're forgetting about this argument, or that commentary..." Maybe so, but I have to move on. Life is short and I care more about some other things. Perhaps your God will forgive me. "He will," says the Rabbi.
ZA, you are not a child for believing in what you believe in. I respect you just as I love and respect the Rabbis - we share too many common goals to hate for long.
Another friend remarked, 'one either believes knowledge expands human consciousness or he believes knowledge cripples pure consciousness.'
I tend to believe both to an extent. I think it all comes back to levels, branches of some incomprehensible tree. Too much knowledge here, and you fail to see this here, as if the branch and level you're on is obstructing your view of something else.
They say its a mark of great intellect to be able to consider things without fully accepting them. I've always liked that saying. Knowledge can make one quite fanatical.
What a life.
I have recollections of old friends of whom I was very fond attempting to propound this idea, and watching how others with more solid stances would throw about their toys to the point they were almost squirming. It is of little doubt this is unapparent and even outside of consideration to the said fanatics, but on they go; on and on, stuck in a cycle of opposition purpertuating itself, rather than flowing, and striving for understanding.
It is by no means a new concept. Language (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19790-Language) differs, but the meaning is there:
In Buddhism, knowledge is regarded as an obstacle to understanding, like a block of ice that obstructs water from flowing. It is said that if we take one thing to be the truth and cling to it, even if truth itself comes in person and knocks at our door, we won't open it. For things to reveal themselves to us, we need to be ready to abandon our views about them.
Of course, opposition can also be a wonderful tool in reconnecting minds to the flow of understanding. As opposition tends to perpetuate itself, people are more inclined to discuss things when they feel their view is being directly opposed. When this becomes a tool, is the point at which one has to think and challenge ones own view to challenge another's... and then it clicks, as they say.
One doesn't need to look all that far to find examples (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?20169-The-sensitivity-of-language-and-people-when-describing-race-related-issues) of this. I recall a an example an old friend wrote, during a particular to and fro of opposition:
You know ZA reads stuff and finds it interesting, sees enough evidence to become more or less convinced, and then gets angry at those who don't see it. He points to "facts" and gets frustrated when we don't acknowledge the facts or don't seem to care as much as he does. There is nothing wrong with any of that.
It happens with religion. It happens with crime and subjugation. It happens. But we can't forget their heart is in the right place.
When I was first married I had tons of Rabbis coming at me with some very decent arguments for things that suggest the authenticity of the Torah. They sounded a lot like ZA: "Read a book – then I'll take you seriously." But they lied. I read some books and came back with more skepticism. The answer?
"Read more books. Or read the same books again. Keep going back until you see what I see."
They see me today as a lost lamb, bulwarked behind my wanton ignorance, my laziness to read every book and study every line of Talmud and read all the commentaries and then actually try some of their versions of Orgone, like wrapping tefillin or davening. "You have to live it in order to comprehend it," they say.
In the end, it is not my laziness, my ignorance, or my cowardice that keeps me from believing in or caring about whether some God wrote some book or whatnot.
The Rabbis will sigh and go over it again. "You're forgetting about this argument, or that commentary..." Maybe so, but I have to move on. Life is short and I care more about some other things. Perhaps your God will forgive me. "He will," says the Rabbi.
ZA, you are not a child for believing in what you believe in. I respect you just as I love and respect the Rabbis - we share too many common goals to hate for long.
Another friend remarked, 'one either believes knowledge expands human consciousness or he believes knowledge cripples pure consciousness.'
I tend to believe both to an extent. I think it all comes back to levels, branches of some incomprehensible tree. Too much knowledge here, and you fail to see this here, as if the branch and level you're on is obstructing your view of something else.
They say its a mark of great intellect to be able to consider things without fully accepting them. I've always liked that saying. Knowledge can make one quite fanatical.
What a life.