Topic: On Intrusion
TR: Mark Turnbull
One will often feel compelled to insert one’s self and one’s beliefs into another’s because of concerns for mistakes we feel – not they feel but we feel – they are making. This of course is generally a mistake on our part, no matter the motivation. When we don’t understand another’s thinking – although we think we do; we say we do – we will attempt to supersede their thoughts and seeming illogic with thoughts and illogic of our own! But they have their reasons; they have their story (their history) which is responsible for their thinking and feeling the way they do.
“No two people see the same world” (as you have been told). But this can be unsettling, and so we try to congregate with those who share a similar world view. But again, because of the different stories that constitute such a congregation (meaning any social gathering), none of the congregates will be in absolute lock-step. But colleagues will gather beneath a flag or church spire to secure a feeling of belonging and camaraderie. When someone intrudes on such a bond with an eye to change or challenge this shared thinking, it will be resented and rightfully so. For you see, any thinking that can be challenged, that is challengeable, exists in a realm that is ultimately time-bound, and by challenging it you prove your own thinking as ephemeral as that you would see changed.
The only response worthy of a child of God is Love, which is not time-bound. Accepting the present standing of the brother or sister who holds the views you would challenge, becomes paramount; the ascension of Love that completes their – and your - partial viewpoint brings an eternal perspective to the finite and relative thinking on display.
So, intrusion into another’s beliefs or fixations – even with the most idealized motives – is always just that – an intrusion. But [by] accepting their considerations – whether you consider them considerations or not! – and, shall we say, ‘absorbing’ their beliefs - and the believer’s entire being - into your fully accepting Love, (what has been called “the cloud of unknowing”), the situation and its participants are benefited in far greater ways and to a much greater degree than any confrontation of opinions could hope to accomplish.
This of course does not rule out discussion. The play of ideas – philosophy – is one of the great sports of the human mind, enlarging the channels of the imagination into far greater receptacles than the shallow streams in which they began. But it does, by acknowledging the respect each human being extends and conversely expects, absolutely rule out coercion.