Love 4: The Shining Revolution

Seeing myself as part of a larger whole makes generosity more than just a pleasant interaction, it makes it... I don't know, just make sense. It seems like the natural way to act. What is the point of life, if not to give. And so, my life is dedicated to the benefit of all others, who, in reality, are all part of me. I want us to be happy and liberated of the tyranny we impose upon ourselves. To live in a mutually-supportive society that does not follow the fools gold of false logics. To embrace love and spread security. To face evil and punch it square in the jaw with the fist of love. What I really want a revolution that shines.
Now that would be truly irresistible, as the author of a book I just read put it (The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne). That is where embracing love has lead me, and will led the world, to a different social system that does not claim its foundation to be greed and selfishness. A shining revolution will cast the light of love and joy on the dark places in the world. To set a floodlight on the twin oppressions of capitalism, poverty of possessions among the poor and poverty of the spirit among the rich. Oh, how they will quiver and scurry at the rays of light we cast upon them.
But enough with metaphors, a shining revolution will be one of generosity of love. It will be of people living acting differently in their daily lives and embracing love. At the center of it will be education, teaching about love, compromise, conflict resolution, and the nature of humanity. Put simply, living for each other in a direct way instead of the indirect way we live for each other now. Fighting with love and compassion. Having the courage to forgive our "enemies" and try to understand each other. All this is very general because it is up to everyone to decide how it will manifest itself, I am merely citing themes that I have seen in my most splendid visions of it.

A shining revolution would be positively contagious. Joy and love are among the most pathogenic emotions, even consuming the most immune of hearts. No one could evade this plague if enough people become infected. I have noticed this first hand, in the effects of my interactions with other people. When I am happy, which is most of the time, I am a veritable Typhoid Mary. When I am generous, people start acting more generous. I don't see how people can not see how powerful this is. A revolution that embraced this way of being would have more power than any government could handle. If we want our revolution to really change the wheel and win us a different way of life, than it has to be a revolution of love, one that shines and draws people like ants to food. Because it WILL be food, food for the souls of the starving and destitute populace who are hungering for the meaning and fulfillment that material consumption and meaningless work can never bring.

Dueling Logics

I have been toying around with an idea I call "dueling logics." I call it that because it seems there are several ideas and notions that are at odds with each other, that different groups put their weight behind and that everyone thinks are mutually exclusive to each other. I will give some background on how I came upon this idea. It all came about from the unanswerable question "can God make a rock he herself could not life?" My answer is yes, if we assume God is all powerful. then she does not have to follow the laws of logic. Well, after occasionally contemplating this for a couple years, I free-associated it to the notion that competing logics are either right or wrong and mutually exclusive to their competitors. For example, either violence does not work and so non-violence does, or vice versa. Or the logic of fear that pushes mistrust of others as security and the logic of hope that pushes generosity as security. Or authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism. And among these dueling logics, they all claim that the other logic is faulty and that their's is true.
Well, it occurred to me, maybe the laws of logic are breakable in one sense... maybe they both co-exist and both hold elements of truth in them despite the fact they claim to be fundamentally incompatable.

I will use the example of violence and non-violence cause I have alot of experience thinking about it. Violence purports to be able to scare people into consent and that non-violence will be unable to accomplish that consent. Non-violence purports to be able to create consent through understanding and generosity, and that violence simply rifts the bonds that allow provide security. Well, I do not see why both logics are mutually exclusive, I think they both hold some truth and some untruth (I do favor non-violence, and think it is more practical and full of truth). There is truth in the fact that violence does get people's consent to stop doing or do something. It has lots of bad repercussions, but for the single-minded pursuit of an objective, I can see where many people would fall into it's trap. Non-violence needs to recognize this truth if it is to further develop a strategy to remove the use of violence from conflicts. Similarly, violence needs to recognize that there is a large amount of "collateral damage" when violence is used, not just in unintended material damage and death but in the emotional scarring of people as well as entire societies. Using non-violence would prevent these negative repercussions.

So, that is something I have been trying to do, find the truth that underlies all sides of "dueling logics" even if I disagree with those sides. The fact that a large number of people put faith in some ideas means that they cannot be entirely devoid of truth. Logics, no matter how much they claim to be mutually exclusive, are not and we should not believe they are.

It is also interesting that modern religions claim to be mutually exclusive to each other. If you believe in one, you don't believe in the others. This was not always the case. Back during the Roman empire, the Pantheon of Gods accepted outsiders among their ranks, so in a Roman city you might see an Egyptian God prayed to by the same people who pray to a Greek God. People did not see this as odd or contradictory because mutual exclusivity was not an intergral part of religions back then. People could piece together their own religion from the different strands avaliable.
Interestingly enough, I can't remember too many religious wars back then either.