I was recently invited to a discussion group that invites “reasonable” people to discuss seemingly conflicting perspectives in a “productive” way. A noble cause, no doubt. But even before I read the treatise, I was struck by the words in quotes.
Discussion implies a need for consensus, or at the very least, understanding. Is this a “reasonable” goal I ask? It seems at times that people do not WANT to understand — a position that must be respected.
I only say this because I personally have NO DESIRE to understand. I’m fine with letting events play themselves out, however disastrous we might imagine the outcomes. In my view, understanding is a misuse of time, a sequence of moments that might better be spent on the exploration of transcendence.
In other words, I am more interested in understanding the nature of reality itself rather than any occurrences seemingly playing out in our imaginary field of perception. I am drawn towards the divine infinity from which reality arises rather than our comparatively infinitesimal defined experience.
Is this reasonable? I can’t say for certain, but most people probably won’t think so.
Is this productive? Again, I imagine myself in the minority. But my intuition tells me I’m right, so it matters not, either way.
Do I NEED to be right? Nope.
I have faith. And faith is what “reasonable” people search for with “productive” discussions.
We are a divisive world, no doubt. But we are also UNITY, beyond this limited human expression. Let’s just drop the whole thing and go climb a tree. That seems reasonable.
We are Space Monkey.