So what constitutes “wisdom”?

So what constitutes “wisdom”?

I have friends and contacts who comprise the spectrum of political and religious thought. Most having their own ideas of what it is that forms reality. Yet, despite the many varied differences, something exists which allows for a mutual ground of being. We may not agree what this ground of being is, but, none can deny it exists. The fact that we simply are, and are associates of each other, demonstrates this factuality.

It is possible for each of us to create (however that may be conceived) our individual realities, and presumably content ourselves to confine ourselves to live in these individual creations (or as understood, foundations). Yet, as we choose to extend ourselves, to others not so disposed to our personal conception of reality, to befriend others for whatever reason, some common grounds become established, allowing for their and our exiting ‘personal’ notions and entrance into ‘common’ accepted wisdom, permitting communications otherwise foreign to one party or the other.

A friend wrote me the other day asking “Your thoughts on Jacob's pillar (Gen 28:18) and the Altar that common day Christians kneel to, the need for ritual and the strength derived from such a selflesh act?” He further commented concerning his “… Freudian slip of the finger”.

I responded to him “Okay, Jacob’s pillar was set up immediately after and in reaction to the dream had concerning “Jacob’s Ladder”. I do believe the dream was informative of spiritual realities occurring in us, primarily of a psychological nature, but not to discount the reality of deeper life, beyond the psyche. I do believe we experience the reality of deeper dimensions, spoken of as spiritual, but not literally, as understood by contemporary, religions (and particularly Contemporary Christianity).

“The “pillar” was a monument dedicated to the remembrance of the dream event. “Does consecration (applying oil on the thing to be consecrated) have any “special” significance?” … Probably not, but to the one consecrating the object … yes. And this is what I believe is represented in “Jacob’s Ladder”. There are varying levels of spiritual depth, knowledge and understanding. We all find ourselves someplace on this ladder, OR moving up and down as may be the situation.

As far as kneeling and praying before an altar. It depends who you are and the depth of one’s own spiritual life. For me, personally, it would be a waste of time. For another (possibly less secure) in their own life, it may be very significant. But I cannot judge another’s preference, at least not openly, though I may hold private reservations.”

We ALL find ourselves in a constant state of climbing and descending that ‘ladder’. Our “religious” particulars, in most cases, where one is truly attempting to come to grips with their known reality and expand their own perception as they understand and deem necessary, have little to do with the state of their position on this “ladder”, or better explained “spiritual maturity”.

It is along this ladder, as we meet and open your heart to the lives of others experiencing their own journey in life that “wisdom” reveals itself. It is not always the same in every situation, but is contingent upon the state of the parties in question. It is not a “Law” or “Command” to be adhered to with unquestioning obedience, but is truly living, making accommodation to the place each liaison occurs according as to what each may give and receive.

Too many, because I used a “Biblical” reference explaining this, they automatically assume this is some “religious” conception. That IS NOT the case but is rather of a more “psychological” nature. Too religionists it would appear “relativistic”, and to an extent, that may be true. But the problem with religionists, particularly those dogmatically entrenched, is that they expect their religious resources to be absolutely literal all of the time, and there again as they and those they reference interpret a particular set of resources. It IS NOT that simple and opposites may be justified concerning the same resources. This is primarily a desire and attempt to do the least (in this case critical research) and get the most “bang” for their parsimonious “buck”. In a word “Laziness”. A sense that it has all been done before, and all the research of “divines” of the past 20 centuries has covered it all. It never occurs that what was taught by one ancient sage (Jesus Christ) was once teachings unbounded by any particular religious origin. If it cannot be interpreted through a set of “rose colored glasses” as determined by them, it is invalid.

Non-religionists, some decidedly critical of anything appearing remotely of a religious origin, without question write off otherwise valid principles and truths as being specific to a particular religion and thus of no possible universal understanding. These fall prey to the same fault as the religionists only 180 ⁰ in the opposite direction. Because it has some religious understanding it is invalidated.

The truth remains, regardless of the religious nature or non-religious nature and origin of a particular. It may not hold value to us at a particular moment on our personal voyage, at another it might, or might not. But that is not valid reason to dismiss its legitimacy in another’s life, or to expect to understand it, or to be understood as we attempt to convey our own minds. Wisdom is the ability to ‘not dispel’ but to integrate these seeming opposites. To find a platform that both, or All, may coexist. Not necessarily without contention or confrontation, but in harmony, allowing for dissonance, a necessary tension where the greater, grander may evolve and emerge. And then, do it over again. Socially, culturally, humanly growing and becoming what it is, the full potential of the human.

Or we could just say “The hell with it all.” Though I have grown increasingly cynical over the years, I have not quite reached that point. And though I admit that would be the easy way, I cannot convince myself that that is “the way it is”. So I suppose I’ll just keep going up and down that ladder until I figure it out.
 

accusations

I am on popular “Social Media” accused of “sexism’, being a misogynist or rapist. As I have used other ‘catchwords’, popular with so-called liberals, such as ‘homophobic’, and supporting my positions with logic unopposed by any in an attempt to debate or prove my reasoning in error, I am now condemned by those, considering it better to hide behind digital placards hawking whatever belief they deem preferable. I do not condemn another’s preference, but I do seriously dispute one’s presumed right to intimidate others into ‘accepting as preferable’ or ‘acceptable’ life conditions without being able to express these positions and preferences in an open forum reasonably and logically. Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, issues are usually more than “black and white”, with considerable grey area which needs (at first) reasonable toleration, and as considered in greater depth and detail, discernment and discrimination.

In the 60’s a debate between conservative William F. Buckley and liberal Gore Vidal demonstrated the effects of allowing uncontrolled emotionalism to shatter the positive effects of what may otherwise have been sound logic. Vidal referred to Buckley as the closest thing he knew of reflecting Fascist Nazi values, Buckley became visibly emotionally affected, and called Vidal a “queer” and rose from his seat threatening to “beat the shit out of Vidal” (my own words). They later apologized to each other, but it was at that time that Vidal knew he had won the debate. You see, it has been scientifically proven that as soon as debate or argument is reduced to emotionalism and/or mudslinging, a person’s IQ is reduced by approximately 20 points. I have my own theories as to why this is, but will not go into them here.

I could see the emotions rising in the party(s) taking issue with me. I admit, I took advantage of this. There are many issues where I might be considered classically conservative. There are many more I am anything but at home among conservatives and would be thus deemed a ‘liberal’. In either case, I attempt to support my positions logically, allowing my emotions to serve as a guide as to whether logic and reason are justified. You see without an inner (emotional) feeling or assertive prompting, ANYTHING can be reasoned, made logical and thus justified. But it is reason and logic which is the means of communicating that which is to be ‘justified’. Liberals or Conservatives, unable to do this, (or resort to shallow political rhetoric) are in my estimation “phonies”, pseudo … whatever’s, but certainly not worthy to represent and communicate what might otherwise be valid … whatever.