Sitting on the fence is not always sitting on the fence


 

The post earlier …

“Sitting on the fence”

If – when we tell each other why we are right (and we do) it is always a version of personal belief – 

(even science – even religion – even fact – even fiction)

why not add love to the telling and speak with kindness?

(even science – even religion – even fact – even fiction)

If – when we hear each other tell why we are right (and we do) it is always a version of personal belief – 

(even science – even religion – even fact – even fiction)

why not add love to the listening and hear with kindness?

(even science – even religion – even fact – even fiction)

In fact – why not do everything with love?

(even science – even religion – even fact – even fiction)

Because almost everything we tell and hear of being right
is of
personal
belief

(even science – even religion – even fact – even fiction)

So why not add love everywhere in everything?

(even science – even religion – even fact – even fiction)

All we have to lose is being right.

(about science – or religion – maybe even fact – or even fiction)

And what is so scary about that?

(unless we need to be right)

And why might that be?

.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Sitting on the fence is not always sitting on the fence

  1. You misunderstand, Paul, and so you frame commentary whose tone is less loving than you’d like in a way that is not reflective of the problem being addressed by critical comments.

    The criticism is necessary because what’s true should not be seen as a personal opinion or something subject to our preferences, nor a topic that must be carefully handled by tone so as to not offend those who do not respect it. It’s not personal until someone tries to tell others that it is just an opinion, that reality really is just an extension of a belief.

    It’s not. And you don’t function in it as if it were.

    So criticizing that assertion that treating reality as if it were a belief has nothing to do with love and nothing to do with being ‘right’. It has everything to do with getting people to accept and respect this common baseline first – respecting reality, respecting what’s true about it. Without that, without this necessary common ground, one cannot have an open and honest and respectful discussion about it. That’s not something the critical commentators can do anything about. It IS something that a person has to decide: will you or will you not grant reality respect, grant what’s true about it to matter? Not doing so – in the name of love – is just a tactic to avoid responsibility for one’s own inability to agree to this most basic of requirements. And if you don’t care about what’s true, about what is the case, then why post anything at all?

    • Tildeb, hello again. And I want to tell you something – because you have never ever asked me – I hoped you would – but you never did.

      Global warming. How religion is bad because it confuses (distracts?) the debate and slows the necessary solutions being agreed and implemented (if I paraphrase you correctly). You never asked if I thought that too – if that was also my belief. Because it is a belief – it is not “scientific proof and evidence” (the religious bit and the slowing). I have seen a lot of debate and almost none of it invokes God. Big business maybe. Personal belief systems that “numbers can say anything” – so don’t trust the numbers. Political preferences for a political agenda. I see a lot of that. And I see individuals caught up in offering their own beliefs.

      What do I mean by beliefs? The structure of certainties we live by. A structure that changes according to circumstance. A structure that is self-created and self-sustained. A structure that is tested and found to be true. It is why there are so many “Gods” in the Christian world, and so few stereotypes of Christians in the atheist world. And why the global warming debate is riddled with those who cannot stomach change (for whatever reason). My own view? The amount of “stuff” we consume – firstly by taking from the air, sea and land – and then chucking our refuse back into the air, sea and land … there is no way we cannot be having a negative effect (currently demonstrated by global warming). My guess is that there are other- as yet – “insignificant” changes we will have reported in the next decade.

      Why this long piece? Because if we could converse with love rather than the duality of win and lose – you would have heard this much sooner. And why – for me – is that important? Because there are many areas of agreement – but they (like the effects we are having on this planet) come to light by looking and listening carefully without prejudice. And you are prejudiced – so am I – so are we all. It is called the personal belief system we each live by. Because if that is not true – then we all already know everything there is to know.

      And I am guessing (from what I have seen you write and the way in which you write) we are not far from each other at that “level” of sharing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s