Dialogue ~ 6

In my last blog I said, “It is not what we do so much as the way in which we have viewed a problem that is at cause of many failed or floundering attempts to improve conditions, to do the right thing or to bring about harmony.”

Even a statement of this nature is capable of generating multiple interpretations and with incisiveness for action. Humanity has long been at odds with itself as to whether problems arise from particular rulers or governance, are of a spiritual, political or economic nature and if this requires a change of regime, funding or military intervention. Overlaid upon this is the division of thought as to the mechanisms of social order, compliance and of what constitutes democracy and progress.

All of this is a healthy sign of an organism that is striving to become self-aware, although many of the choices made on behalf of nations and groups have brought about unnecessary bloodshed and suffering. There is a familiar paraphrase, from an essay on freedoms and power written by the English historian Lord Acton, that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Some other observations of his bear equal merit, namely: “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class” and “Liberty becomes a question of morals more than politics” and finally “Authority that does not exist for Liberty is not authority but force”.

A succinct way of looking at this could be that ‘authority must be in service of liberty (which has to do with morals rather than politics), as when it is not, it loses authority and moves into force’.

On occasion when there is opposition or an attempt to apply force, Lord Acton said, “There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion.”

This is a valid reminder as to how aspects of personality or being-ness such as ignorance and narrow-mindedness cannot be confronted head-on – what often happens is that a person with these qualities moves into a defensive and combative stance. Such qualities must encounter their contrast for transformation to occur. I don’t believe this is something that can be contrived in any way, as there is integrity, perhaps even a natural order to energy that we might not be conscious of. This is potentially behind what Jesus had been speaking of when he said (in the Gospel of Matthew): “You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”.

In one of his writings, Lord Acton wrote: “The sentiment on which (papal) infallibility was founded could not be reached by argument, the weapon of human reason, but resided in conclusions transcending evidence, and was the inaccessible postulate rather than a demonstrable consequence of a system of religious faith”. Further, “To proclaim the Pope infallible was their compendious security against hostile States and Churches, against human liberty and authority, against disintegrating tolerance and rationalising science, against error and sin”.

A postulate is inaccessible in so much as it is regarded as a foundation of truth, as absolute and is not open for doubt or question. Lord Acton had written specifically about one religious denomination, but what he had said about a position of infallibility could equally apply to any group or body of thought which operates under a banner of faith and is impervious to reason.

Earlier I had written, “A succinct way of looking at this could be that ‘authority must be in service of liberty (which has to do with morals rather than politics), as when it is not, it loses authority and moves into force’”. If a position of moral authority is taken by a group which proclaims to draw this authority not from its own representatives, but from an external authority and which cannot be engaged with by reason, then that group will by its own hand be exclusive and intolerant.

At this point I would like to consider how reason is often crowned as being at the pinnacle of human thought. Reason has been interpreted as the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgments logically. Why is it that rather than proving as transformative, reason is often used as part of an arsenal of force?

Any group which is representative of a particular set of beliefs can generate valid reasons as to why they believe as they do, or as the basis from which their take any actions. Even an insane man can generate reasons which appear as perfectly justifiable to his reality or worldview. If challenged with an alternative worldview, conflict often arises – clearly two wrongs don’t make a right. In yesterday’s blog, I wrote, “If two tribes are at war and tribe A is the aggressor, would removal of tribe A eradicate the problem? And “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.

To repeat again, Lord Acton had said (with regard to particular states of mind or being-ness) that ‘they can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities’. Should this be true, then reason or at least what has been interpreted as reason is not sufficient to bring about transformation per se – and if reason is not the ‘contrary quality’ of ignorance or small-mindedness, then what is?