I have been writing a long essay about my history, and attempting to sum up, in terms understandable to brethren, why I cannot continue among them. Reading through what I've written so far, and also through my previous postings here, it is very clear that I have a favourite word: "but".
I think it's a good word, and along with its relations "although", "despite" and sundry others, the enemy of the absolute.
The word "but" lets you put opposing ideas and facts next to each other without fighting. With a "but", you are forced to acknowledge that there is more than one side to an issue. It's a peacemaker between contradictions. It marks out a method where you at least attempt to take into account something that disagrees with what you're trying to say.
Personally, I think that's healthy.
I try to understand, really I do, and I'm willing to keep talking to those brethren who wish to persuade me to stay among them, because I would genuinely like to reach some kind of mutual comprehension. It's very one-sided, because they aren't approaching it the same way. However, that's the way I work.
It's that approach that makes me try to explain rather than condemn. I don't believe I have to agree with something to understand it, and it is only by understanding fully that I can decide whether I agree or not. I'm surprised to find that this is disconcerting to a lot of people.
That's enough of this post-modern self-referential blog entry. I need to get back to my essay. It's a devil of a job trying to be comprehensive. Write down everything that troubles me? I could be at it for months.
4 comments:
An interesting approach Survivor. Similar I suppose to trying to understand another culture. Perhaps anthropology is in your future!
Value judgements are bound to arise during the study. But that is another matter.
or rather George asked:
Is there anything "absolute"?
You said:
"I would genuinely like to reach some kind of mutual comprehension. It's very one-sided, because they aren't approaching it the same way"
When I tried to gain this mutual comprehension with my brother (still with the brethren) it was the one-sidedness of the conversation that made t impossible. Indeed I often find this with christians not in the brethren and with any other person who has a strong belief religious or not. For example, conversations with some psychodynamic therapists are impossible and I would imagine with some politicians ditto
Bravo for the "But”. The logic embedded in language enables us to understand each other. Each time we express ourselves, however, a process of simplification by censoring of our thoughts occurs which reduces the breadth of our expression below our actual level of comprehension. The wider we range in discussion the closer we come to full mutual understanding. Religions deliberately close off options of different ways of seeing things as an affirmation of the rightness of the beliefs held. I believe this is the same Jill with psychoanalysis, despite its claim to be scientific. Unfortunately for you survivor this means that the more you talk (with brethren) the further apart your understanding of each other will become.
Post a Comment