I've been grappling with a lot of deep stuff lately, including the population problem; marriage; communication, conflict, compromise; social responsibility and some other things. The thing I've noticed is that even though I think I'm a pretty smart person, I previously have been in the habit of deferring the practice of thinking about these things and analyzing them, with an eye to reaching a decision or stance, to other people like my dad, pastor Don, Robin, or other people who have told me what to think and that I trust.
I'm just coming into my own as someone who is able to give thorough analysis to an issue AND make a decision or take a stance. I had this feeling that in previous moments in my life I had been viewing myself more like how I saw John Kerry, who, I got the impression, thought a lot about things and was very smart & articulate, but had a hard time coming to the crux of a matter in the form of a succinct decision.
This is not to say that I think issues like this should be reduced to a soundbite or the dialogue ends with my ruling; on the contrary, I think my reticence to come to decisions rested on the recognition that these debates flowed far before my time and will continue to run through and beyond my lifespan.
This is a great argument for indecision.
However, the indecision becomes inadequate when it cripples. Surely it is acknowledged that one of the main goals (the main goal?) of rational thought, debate, and investigation is to improve. Make better. Ameliorate, share. Progress.
Does that mean that women and men of action do not recognize this or are stupid or ignorant or ostrich-headed?
I think we would all agree; no.
Rabbit trail:
I have often surmised that the very smartest people in the world are able to realize certain things about themselves, including their weaknesses, and use these realizations in order to make their lives better. It was my hypothesis that if someone were really smart, they would have the best lives because it would be they who would best be able to find the quickest path to [happiness] or whatever you want to call "living the best possible life."
So I say to myself, Sarah, if you were really smart you wouldn't be this miserable. So either you're not smart or you haven't applied your brain to fixing your problems. Get crackin!
With this in mind, I sought to move beyond [pure academic foofooing in the ether] because obviously if the world operated like that nothing would get done and we would all die.
This is where Gandhi comes in.
He was a smart guy, a lawyer (!) (among other things). But all the stuff he did in his life, including the whole "casting off of colonial British rule" thing, he called experiments.
Veeeeerrry interesting.
The thing is, a bunch of people sitting in a room somewhere cannot think something through so that every detail works out perfectly. Duh, but sometimes I try to do just that. I have to go out and experiment to see if what I think works.
This has some implications. Number one, people cannot come to definite conclusions by sitting in that same room somewhere debating, because they do not have all the information that would make that definite conclusion possible.
Which brings me to number two, that would make them God, wouldn't it? If, by simply thinking and talking, people were able to declare what is truth and what is not?
Caveat: I'm not talking here about verifiable facts--like the temperature today--which, of course, are "true." I'm referring to answers to questions like "What exactly must be done to end world hunger?" and "How do you have a successful marriage?" and "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" and "Is there a just war?"
If I can never be sure if my ideas will work like I want them to or not, I have to ~go~ gather evidence to show that previous experiments indicate my idea will work, and I have to ~go~ try it out to see if it will work.
(See why you learned the scientific method in the fifth grade?)
I can't be so sure of the rightness of myself and the wrongness of other people. Maybe they're just trying a different experiment. Wait and see what works.
The point is rather surprising.
The POINT is.
The point IS.
Don't just sit there, do something!
I'm just coming into my own as someone who is able to give thorough analysis to an issue AND make a decision or take a stance. I had this feeling that in previous moments in my life I had been viewing myself more like how I saw John Kerry, who, I got the impression, thought a lot about things and was very smart & articulate, but had a hard time coming to the crux of a matter in the form of a succinct decision.
This is not to say that I think issues like this should be reduced to a soundbite or the dialogue ends with my ruling; on the contrary, I think my reticence to come to decisions rested on the recognition that these debates flowed far before my time and will continue to run through and beyond my lifespan.
This is a great argument for indecision.
However, the indecision becomes inadequate when it cripples. Surely it is acknowledged that one of the main goals (the main goal?) of rational thought, debate, and investigation is to improve. Make better. Ameliorate, share. Progress.
Does that mean that women and men of action do not recognize this or are stupid or ignorant or ostrich-headed?
I think we would all agree; no.
Rabbit trail:
I have often surmised that the very smartest people in the world are able to realize certain things about themselves, including their weaknesses, and use these realizations in order to make their lives better. It was my hypothesis that if someone were really smart, they would have the best lives because it would be they who would best be able to find the quickest path to [happiness] or whatever you want to call "living the best possible life."
So I say to myself, Sarah, if you were really smart you wouldn't be this miserable. So either you're not smart or you haven't applied your brain to fixing your problems. Get crackin!
With this in mind, I sought to move beyond [pure academic foofooing in the ether] because obviously if the world operated like that nothing would get done and we would all die.
This is where Gandhi comes in.
He was a smart guy, a lawyer (!) (among other things). But all the stuff he did in his life, including the whole "casting off of colonial British rule" thing, he called experiments.
Veeeeerrry interesting.
The thing is, a bunch of people sitting in a room somewhere cannot think something through so that every detail works out perfectly. Duh, but sometimes I try to do just that. I have to go out and experiment to see if what I think works.
This has some implications. Number one, people cannot come to definite conclusions by sitting in that same room somewhere debating, because they do not have all the information that would make that definite conclusion possible.
Which brings me to number two, that would make them God, wouldn't it? If, by simply thinking and talking, people were able to declare what is truth and what is not?
Caveat: I'm not talking here about verifiable facts--like the temperature today--which, of course, are "true." I'm referring to answers to questions like "What exactly must be done to end world hunger?" and "How do you have a successful marriage?" and "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" and "Is there a just war?"
If I can never be sure if my ideas will work like I want them to or not, I have to ~go~ gather evidence to show that previous experiments indicate my idea will work, and I have to ~go~ try it out to see if it will work.
(See why you learned the scientific method in the fifth grade?)
I can't be so sure of the rightness of myself and the wrongness of other people. Maybe they're just trying a different experiment. Wait and see what works.
The point is rather surprising.
The POINT is.
The point IS.
Don't just sit there, do something!
Comments