eThoughts : Sacred But Not Exclusive: Part II

Part of the series It’s All Been Said Before™ (© 2006), a division of Book-In-A-Drawer Publications.™

Perhaps it’s the way things blend together, perhaps my attention is being or has been directed towards this sacred-but-not-exclusive focus, but another conversation about a different subject, broached by my friend, seemed to land on the same nail. So, risking the potential to pull out my cognitive hammer in answer to my assumption of the cognitive nails of others, I’ll venture forth again, before moving on.

The subject was not really important—a backdrop to a conversation about what was real or not—but the emphasis that one’s view is the view is important. In any case, the subject was partially about being young and inexperienced. It was the assertion of my friend that the status of those who are not experienced is suspect and certainly cannot contribute much to what reality really is—meaning how much information could a young person possibly have that would produced a nuanced and intelligent description?

I didn’t get the point, though it certainly seemed like I should. After all, the experience I’ve gained from my youth to my now 59 years has added tremendously to the depth and breadth of my perspective. Perhaps I was railing against the thought that authoritarianism—the claiming of exclusive and higher ground—can contaminate a description or investigation of reality. If one is truly an authority, they will be fairly good at such descriptions and investigations, they do not need to wield about their claim as though it was a power tool, enticing others to see the validity of their perspective or risk being considered a lesser being.

It seems to me that if a three-year old or a hundred-year old is telling us about something, we all might benefit from losing our status as a purveyor and corrector of reality. When we get out of what we know and back to seeing it as uncontaminated as we can, we perpetuate a status-free conversation. That place seems like a good genesis for honesty, ethics, and morality. It sure seems like an easier conversation when each is trying to figure out what’s important, rather than spend their respective energies pushing their point of view.

What if we can’t find sustainable and convergent mutual ground with some one or some group? Well we know that’s a guarantee. So what if we don’t? Is it important that we all have the same general perspective? That leads me to another conversation, which will wrap up this approach. What if we built specific communities, like retirement centers, as well as building communal ground for each divergent group? We could have a community of people who didn’t care about their stuff or others. We could have a community of kinky folks, scared ones, aggressors, etc. Now what we have are general communities where we try to fit in, just forget about it, or retreat into our own pockets of exclusivity within the general community. The result of the emphasis on everybody being equal may be unnecessary stress for such divergent groups and differing attentions. Sure, we cannot be isolated communities—communities need to interact—but we might consider the importance of breathing freely where we at least live. Can we escape the tightrope act as well as engage in it?

In other words, maybe we can be exclusive and sacred at the same time by learning to interact within and between the different social seasons, like plants and animals do with the seasons of the earth. We may have our favorites, but we cannot dodge completely the rhythms and changes that surround and infuse us. So maybe we can have separate and exclusive views and be around those that share those views. But we cannot assume that what is clearly best for us, is best for all—that is where exclusivity becomes pathological.

We could create that opportunity, that kind of structure, but we might have to give up our current American political view (at least) about what constitutes equality. Perhaps we are equal and unequal at the same time. If that’s the reality, maybe we should consider being realistic—and being realistic isn’t about impeding growth, it’s about starting from a grounded, uncontaminated position. In a world of human agendas, we might need the both the practice and the clarity.