--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:50 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Stories > > > > What if we lived in a universe in which ALL of the stories > we tell to ourselves and to others are "true," and just > *seem* to be contradictory? What if the universe supported > ALL of these seeming contradictions, without missing a > step, and found a way to reconcile ALL of them? > > It seems to me that we DO live in such a universe. If > it can reconcile all these seemingly contradictory > stories, why can't we? > > We can, by being more universal, which is what we're trying > to do, if we aspire to enlightenment. Learning to recognize > one's cherished stories as relative perspectives that are not > necessarily more true than their opposites is a powerful > technique for enlightenment.
At the same time, though, we don't want to mood-make ourselves into a state in which we lose sight of distinctions and relative values, which can happen if we're told that being "more universal" is "better." It's fine to be *able* to take a universal view, but we ought to be able to operate in the realm of distinctions and values as well. One of the most important distinctions is a meta-distinction, that between facts and opinions. Another is between opinions that are well supported by facts and logic and those that are not, and between "stories" that are honest reflections of one's thinking and perceptions, and those that are made up to for the purpose of looking good. Yet another is between Zen-like contradictions (paradoxes) and self-serving contradictions due to intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty. Taking the "more universal" stance should no be used as an excuse to avoid making distinctions and assigning values when appropriate.
