The Rivals of Our Rightness

The conventional (sterile) thinker separates human discourse into the rational and the emotional (or irrational or illogical or habitual). Rational thought is thought that is considered to be conscious, scientific, reasoned, experiential, tested, etc. Emotional thought is thought that is marked by the absence of such things - substituting them merely with what someone desires to be true without regard to raw data.

This is not valid. Rather, it is a manner by which people of all ideas argue for their own points of view. One KNOWS his own arguments and therefore sees himself as "rational," and does not know any serious arguments by those who disagree with him ; thus, there is an assumption of "irrationality."

The fact is, virtually all sides of an issue arise from a cumbersome combination of assumptions, desires, feelings, thoughts, arguments, impulses, habits and experiences. It's not that "I" have facts and rational arguments while "you" have feelings and irrational ideas. It is that each of us has a different set of assumptions, desires, feelings, thoughts, arguments, impulses, habits and experiences.

The issue is one of awareness or what might be called consciousness. "I" am aware of some things, while "you" are aware of other things.

The closest humanity can come to complete, thorough Truth must consist of the best assumptions, desires, feelings, thoughts, arguments, impulses, habits and experiences of all of us together. Therefore, "Truth" is only possible in a context of a complete diversity that welcomes all, into a unity that includes all.

The great obstacles: the persistent, irrational drive of every individual to be "right" in contrast to some rival. The energy of that drive comes from our great fear of the pain and shame that we anticipate if we are "wrong."

Even those who claim to "celebrate diversity" and pursue "unity" are in a state of rejection of a set of rivals - those who do not seem to them to properly "celebrate diversity" or pursue "unity." Rosie O'Donnell and Sarah Palin are ridiculed for almost identical psychological reasons, each by her own rather shallow community of rivals. The fact that the political opinions of each community seem so different is almost trivial in comparison to the more powerful and destructive psych0-spiritual forces that are at work.

In most cases, rather than saying one argument is "rational" while another is "emotional," we must say - and teach ourselves to MEAN - that each argument is what could rightly be called fragmented awareness.

It seems impossible for many of us to embrace the rivals of our (assumed) rightness. Thus, all seeming impulses toward unity in diversity turn out to be mere anemic rhetoric. And any real, complete, healing Truth remains undiscovered.

Because every viewpoint is a mere fragment, every agenda is merely "so called."

So called faith vs. so called science. There is no small degree of doubt and rebellion in even the most faithful heart, and every scientist that has ever lived has functioned out of a substantial degree of assumption and blind faith.

So called conservatism vs. so called liberalism. Most conservatives bring their fair share of tolerance and generosity into the world, and most liberals can be pretty intolerant and stingly in certain situations.

So called feminism vs. so called gender traditionalism.
So called wealth vs. so called poverty.
So called intelligence vs. so called ignorance.