Because they each believe they are entitled to have personal concepts, opinions, beliefs, inalienable rights, obligations… and they don’ t see "things" in the same way.
Why do they not see things the same way?
Because each person has their own perspective; each person is different from each other person; each person is unique; each has their own lenses; each person sees differently.
Isn't disagreement, then, the natural condition or a consequence of people's differences?
In a sense, yes. In the sense and to the extent that each person believes they are entitled to their own concepts, opinions and beliefs.
Then, why fight?
Because people, in their hearts, deep within, yearn to agree with each other.
But fighting is the opposite of this yearning to agree: How can fighting lead to agreement?
If the victorious imposes his will upon the vanquished, then they no longer disagree.
But people have been fighting for millennia, and they still continue to disagree and fight, fight and disagree: are we doomed to fight forever?
No. People realized this dilemma long ago and invented a way to seek agreement without fighting. It's called “the Law.” So, if two or more disagree, they call upon a third one to establish an agreement.
On the whole, that has not been a very successful invention given the present state of affairs in the world. Why has it not worked?
Because when two people disagree, the third one called upon usually disagrees with both of them. Also, because all that the Law has really done is to provide a means whereby people can continue to fight, even if supposedly in a more civilized way.
But if what we seek really is agreement, there must be another way, a way other than fighting?
There is. But firstly we must simply stop fighting. If for no other purpose, then to catch our breath and look around to see what else is possible.
What is the other way?
There are many, doubtlessly. For example, we could agree to disagree.
But if we truly seek to agree with each other, would it be possible to agree to disagree?
No. It would no more work than the Law.
Other than the ways that do not work, is there a way that does?
Yes.
And what is that?
The truth.
What kind of "truth," a religious truth, a metaphysical truth, a political truth, a scientific truth, an economic truth, a psychological truth, your truth, my truth?
None of those. Simply the truth with respect to who we really are, what "things" and life is really are all about, and the like.
Remember, the Earth continued to rotate on its axis and orbit around the Sun even when the Catholic Church compelled Galileo to recant. There are realities in this Universe above and beyond what people believe to be true.
How could we ever reach consensus on any such thing or truth?
Firstly, it requires that people have a little less regard for their own concepts, opinions, beliefs, inalienable rights and obligations… that they be willing to look for what is true before capitulating to their own beliefs.
Even if that were possible for some, who would be an authority in these matters, whom could we look for not to deceive us again and again?
Each of us is an authority in these matters and, together, we are the authority. What is required is that each of us be willing to open our eyes, open our minds and open our hearts.
To whom shall we so open?
Firstly, to ourselves, to whom we really are regardless of our concepts, opinions and beliefs about who we are.
But then there would be as many truths as there are people on earth?
In a certain sense, that is so. But only in a certain sense.
Would that not make agreement even more difficult?
Not if we accept that each of us sees different parts of the truth, but that what each of us sees fits in with what others see.
It is something like a giant jig saw puzzle: Each of us brings a different piece to be put together into a giant puzzle. Surely we might see the wisdom of the one who brings the bottom right hand corner of the puzzle not fighting with the one who brings the top left hand corner, just because they are not alike.
But that is not being very practical or realistic. You are suggesting that mass confusion will result in agreement. How is that possible?
Firstly, it requires that each person accept the fact that he or she represents one piece of a puzzle.
Secondly, it requires that each person accept that he or she is as different from each other person as each piece in a jig saw puzzle is different from every other.
Thirdly, it requires that each person recognize that the purpose of individual differences is that all the parts may work together, rather than they fight to convert each other into their own sameness.
Fourthly, it requires that each person accept that the real significance of their individual differences is the fact that they derive true significance in the whole, just as each piece of the puzzle has significance in the whole of the puzzle.
But that is just Utopian malarkey. It wont work, will it?
It does not matter what you label it. The real question is whether that be true or not. Decide for yourself. Whether it will work or not remains to be determined. It has never been tried.
Surely it has been tried! What you say sounds very much like what Jesus or Moses said, and that has been tried and we still have the mess we have. Surely any Christian or Jew would agree that it has been tried?
It has been tried in the sense that the words have been said or spoken. But it has not been tried in the sense that it has been done.
It has been done in the sense that people throughout the millennia have developed theories or beliefs, but not in the sense that people have been willing to let that be their experience, what they actually do in their daily living.
That is certainly a naive oversimplification of things. People have always tried to live moral lives to the highest of their aspirations and vision: don't you have to take into consideration that people are not perfect?
Who says people are not perfect? That they have not acted as perfect beings over the millennia, there is little doubt. But in doing what they have done, have they believed themselves to be perfect or imperfect?
People have believed themselves to be imperfect, but capable of perfection in another world.
What if their belief that they are imperfect were as erroneous as the Church's insistence that the Sun rotates around the Earth when Galileo said it did not?
If the truth be that they are perfect whereas they believe themselves to be imperfect and have acted on the basis of their assumed imperfection, have they then really done what Moses and Jesus advised?
No. It has not been tried. It has been said that it has been tried in the sense that people have believed themselves to be imperfect.
But as pieces in the giant jig saw puzzle, it has not even been considered that people might be perfect in the sense that they are just the pieces that are needed for the puzzle to come together.
Do you mean to say that people are perfect? That would surely be disputed. It would also be patently absurd if you at all consider the state of affairs in this world: the chaos, the war, the insecurity!
I say it has not been tried. If people are perfect, they have not given themselves the opportunity to prove it out.
What has been tried is a theory or belief that people are imperfect, and what we now have in the world is the consequence of proceeding on that assumption.
There was a time when captains and admirals of the sea would not venture beyond a certain distance west of the coast of Europe for fear they would fall off the flat surface of the Earth into an abyss. So no one tried.
Then along came the likes of Columbus who did not accept such opinions and beliefs and discovered America. Perhaps we shall also discover new worlds if we allow ourselves to experience what Moses and Jesus counseled.
But you expect people to become as saints! Surely that is not possible except for a few! How many in recorded history have reached that kind of state, one hundred, two hundred? A thousand?
That is another belief: that only a few can become saints.
But who is talking about saints? And what if it is possible for everyone to be saint? And, what is a saint?
But I do not expect anyone to become a saint. All I say is that what Moses and Jesus recommended has not been tried. Let it be tried and then we shall see what happens; what people become; what the facts are. Until it is tried we do not know.
Surely we don’t have to try everything to know! After all, we don’t have to jump from a tall building to know that we will die in the fall. There are some things that we can know without trying, and surely one of those things is that people are not perfect. That is evident from history and from understanding of Church doctrine rather than ridiculing it. It is self evident that man lives in sin: that is the story of the Fall from the Garden of Eden, isn't it?
What we learn from jumping from a tall building is that we cannot fly. If we could fly, jumping from a tall building would probably be quite a pleasure rather than certain death. But we don't have to jump from a tall building to learn that we cannot fly; we know that already before we ascend into the building.
And we know that not because it is our opinion and belief, but based on our experience.
What is evident from history is that men and women have acted as fallen humans, in the belief that they are imperfect – whether or not that belief represents the truth or fact.
As for Church doctrine, I know of no place where Jesus suggests that people reach perfection only in death, in an afterlife. Did he not say "...be ye therefore perfect, even as My Father is perfect"?
Nor is there in the story of the Fall from the Garden any indication that one has to die to regain it. On the contrary, the Angel and the flaming sword maintain the way back to the Garden for those who would follow.
Clearly, I suggest, Moses and Jesus both perceive that people are at least capable of perfection in this life.
And, if man was created in the image and likeness of God, as it is written, is it likely that man would be imperfect whereas God is perfect? Can a photograph reflect the exact opposite of the subject photographed?
No, it has not been tried because it has not been believed. And people have been wont to try only that which they believe.
Why are we having such a philosophical and theological discussion? Do we have to discuss religion every time we ask a simple question? How can we prevent people from fighting and destroying themselves as they appear poised to do?
The fact is that religion has appropriated unto itself most of those subjects which are basic, essential and indispensable to people’s understanding of themselves.
Religion has woven a system of beliefs, opinions and dogma that is rather like a fabric that people use to cover themselves. And because the cloth does cover them to a certain extent, they fear to re-examine or reconsider it. After all, few people are foolish enough to bite the hand that clothes them.
Religion can, if it so chooses, take such matters into its own hand, but it does not thereby acquire exclusive rights to determine the answers for many subjects worthy of discussion and dialogue.
The truth is the common heritage of all people, regardless of religious doctrines or beliefs. Whether human beings are imperfect, for example, is of consequence to every person regardless of religious stripe. These are not questions reserved to anyone in particular, but of significance to all alike.
We can prevent people from destroying each other by understanding the facts as they really are, rather than applying this or the other religious doctrine or belief which may or may not accurately represent the truth. The real issue is that doctrines and beliefs tend to obscure truth. We have enough experience of this in history quite aside from the record of Galileo's experience.
But it really comes down that, for me, perspective and understanding is never a closed subject. Doctrine and beliefs are almost universally cast in stone and, therefore, closed. If perspective and understanding are based on what we experience in living life, they need always remain open subjects for we are always experiencing and learning new things in life.
Only concepts, opinions and beliefs can remain unchanged and fixed: that is precisely the reason that the Church insisted that Galileo recant. So that it could maintain a position based on doctrine which was unwilling to accommodate what Galileo experienced by observation and consideration.
When you base your life on concepts and dogma, it is very difficult to admit mistakes and allow for change to correct it. Experience always leaves one open to admit mistake, because each new experience allows for larger perspective and understanding.
I have often witnessed people caught in conflict between theory and fact. The Church’s dogma compels them to try to change the facts because the Church will not tolerate a change in theory.
If you maintain that understanding comes only by experience, then how can you know if God exists? I do not wish to encourage theological discussions, but surely that is also a question that is central to people’s better understanding of themselves and pursuit of the truth as you speak of it. Certainly you do not propose that you can know that God exists on the basis of your own, imperfect experience and observation?
It depends on what you mean by the word "God.” Remember, in the first place, that the word "God" is used in religion to describe a particular set of concepts, opinions, beliefs and dogma. Indeed the whole of religion, whatever stripe, is dependent upon the individual accepting these basic dogma.
No one ever proved or disproved the existence of God by intellectual exercise either. So that, in religious terms, you either believe or don’t believe in God. The central issue is one that is understood or accepted as an act of faith. Indeed, it has been said that religion is ultimately an act of faith. When the Church forced Galileo to recant, it was essentially because religion accepted its concept of the relationship between the Sun and the Earth as an act of faith, consequent upon the Church's dogma as to the place and purposes that such God established.
Well, what does the word "God" mean to you?
I prefer not to use the word because it is very difficult to divorce it from the various beliefs and doctrines that men have believed in over the millennia.
Is there a Supreme Being, a Supreme Power, a Supreme Creator – God in that sense of the word?
I experience the existence of a Power, Force or Energy in operation in my world, that is my world as I experience it.
I see it in the way that "things" work. I see it in the fact that trees grow from seeds and that a maple seed produces a maple tree, not an oak. I see it in the fact that all oak trees have a character in common with other oak trees but different than maple trees. And all oak trees have the same things in common.
You might say that I discern this Power in my experience of a certain design which is evident throughout Nature.
I see it in the observation that up to a certain point in time, an elephant embryo and a human embryo are indistinguishable from each other, yet a human embryo produces a human being and the other an elephant.
You might say that I see it and experience it on the basis of certain laws that seem to govern the operation of things as they really are. I see it in the flow of the seasons of the year and that events seem to follow specific patterns rather than taking place by random.
You might say that I see it in a certain order that events seem to follow. I see it in the way that all living beings, from trees and flowers to human beings, are shaped according to very specific proportion: Phi – the Golden Mean – which describes a ratio of .618 present in the relation of parts to the whole of living beings.
I see it in the absolute presence of a design in all the forms of Nature.
I see that Power in the design and function of my own body – things so marvelous that they are hard to describe: the processes of reproduction; the cardiovascular system; the digestive system; the glandular system; the design and function of the brain and nervous system... all these observations which my experience tells me cannot simply happen by happenstance, by mere permutation and combination of relevant factors.
Permutation and combination theories might explain the occurrence of one human body, but not of more than six billion, all alike!
But that just appears to be new window dressing for the old ontological thesis proving the existence of God: where there is evidence of a design, a deliberate design, there needs be postulated a designer. As you have said, that proves nothing, is not that true?
Yes. But I do not postulate a designer.
I perceive a design in existence, functioning, evolving. The Power that is at work is itself the Supreme Power. It needs nothing behind it to maintain it or design it.
That is indeed the reason that I prefer not to use the word "God." Because it leads to the conclusion that one is engaged in describing a certain set of beliefs and dogma.
I prefer to use the word Life to describe that Power and Creative Energy. I experience Life in my own living, beginning with the breath that animates my body. I perceive the Energy of Life in all the creation of Nature.
I experience Life in the interaction of all of Nature’s created forms. I perceive the movement of Life in the whole of my world as I experience it, from the microcosm to the macrocosm of which I am aware.
Life is everywhere, and there is no place where Life is not.
And I experience Life in accordance with very specific patterns or cycles; it is not at all a haphazard thing. It moves in ways that are beyond my power to describe by means of words.
Life is not at all a belief, a concept, an opinion or a dogma: it is an experience, a continuing event to be observed and experienced in the whole of my body, intellect, emotions, instincts and intuitions. I live and exist in Life. Some say, in their moments of lucidity, that they "have" life. I would rather say that I experience Life in every living moment. So indeed I can know if Life exists because I experience it. Indeed, Life can only be known because it is the experience of a person. It cannot be known any other way! Like breathing, the proof of Life is the living of it.
Isn't that rather a simplistic concept?
As a concept it may appear simplistic, but for me it is not a concept, it is a means of describing what I experience in the living of Life.
Besides, even if it is simplistic, where is it postulated that truth need be complex? Need the truth be complex to be the true?
Need we have theories and beliefs to recognize harmony when we hear it? Is it not sufficient to experience harmony in order to understand it? To me Life is like harmony because Life is harmonious. And I know more about harmony, as in music, when I hear it than by reading any myriad of books or instructions filled with concepts, opinions, beliefs and dogma.
So now we have your views on the fact that God, or Life, exists and that man needs to consider whether or not he is perfect. Are we any closer to an answer to the question we began with: why do people fight?
Yes we are.
People fight because they are ignorant of the fact that they are perfect to participate in the process of Life.
They imagine themselves to be imperfect because of the dogma, concepts and beliefs they have swallowed.
They fail to recognize the processes of Life, of which they are an intricate part, because they look to dogma rather than experience.
And so they disagree, because they have different dogmas and beliefs; because they fail to recognize that each of them manifests Life in a unique way; because they fail to recognize that their differences contribute to the richness and beauty of the whole.
After all, what kind of a jig saw puzzle would it be if every part were exactly the same as every other part?
