_First_, how small or weak must a minority be in order to become
totally insignificant and rationally negligible? I do not see how we
can give any answer to this question that will not assume, rightly
or wrongly, that there is a realm of free spirit that lives by
forces resident within itself, and not by permission of anything
external to itself. Whatever matter may prove to be, and whatever
factor of determinism may reside in the temporal process; however
irrational and self-defeating we may at times become, something that
is self-nourishing appears to be capable of asserting itself in the
weakest minority.
_Second_, how broad must cooperation in thinking be in order that I may
become fully emancipated from myself? Who is to be included, and who is
to be excluded from the fellowship of intelligence? Again, I do not see
what answer can be given that will not assume that inclusive good-will
is an inherent aspect of intelligence. Good-will assumes, likewise, to
be a self-sustaining thing; it cannot be either purchased or compelled;
rather, it creates the fellowship of minds from within mind.
_Third_, is the grace of repentance whereby we break through our shell
into freedom a matter of arbitrary liking or a matter of obligation?
Knowing the blunderous way that we live, and the hurts that our
blunders entail, how can we possibly say that repentance may wait upon
our convenience? How can we possibly maintain the rightful supremacy of
rationality unless we assume that “I ought” is inherently involved in
it? How could we possibly be at home and free in an a-moral universe?
_Fourth_, what reservations are made by the mind that fully emancipates
itself from its self-imposed bondage? Is a taboo placed upon any
subject or material of thought? Is there any area of the universe that
is “posted” so that we may not hunt upon it?
Men used to assume that there are such areas. The name of God was
spoken with a hush; men even forbade themselves to speak it at all.
They became mute and abject in the presence of supposedly fearsome
forces, whether divine or demoniac; yes, some men and institutions
and old thoughts were even walled off so that eyes might not see.
All this was self-imprisonment from which it is necessary to achieve
self-release. We must reach the point where we realize that it is only
a pseudo-sanctity, a piece of mere conventionality, that reserves any
kind of actuality from the peering eyes of anyone who desires to know.
We are guilty of no irreverence when we investigate the pedigrees and
weigh the conduct of all the gods; we must be able with tranquillity
to endure uncertainties while waiting for evidence; and, as for the
sanctity of any temple built by men, what men have built that they can
rebuild or replace.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account