Mental or Emotional?

2003-4-11 22:29:00

My Friends,

Glenys presented to us the dialog below as one of a mental person in debate with himself about the validity of the war. I see this as a good opportunity to examine the dialog and then ascertain if this is true.

Assignment: Read the musings below and answer:

Does the text give evidence of an emotional or mental polarization of the writer? Why or why not?

'Thanks to all the debate (and also the debate about what to debate) on the war issue I have been forced to ferret around inside my own head and heart to try and express a coherent view.

My head can find a pretty rational argument for basically any view that is principle based. Taking the pulse of the heart however is what T S Eliot calls 'raiding the inarticulate'.

What my heart is mainly growling about is all the 'taking sides' 'knowing where you stand' stuff. I find this to be a tired form of sixth ray fanaticism by both sides. It is the "he that is not with me is against me'' story.

It may feel good to my emotional body to choose a side and of course the mind desperately wants to be right but my heart wants to live in the uncertainty of the whole human experience, shifting according to its own special wisdom - living the question instead of knowing the answer.

And so I am going to try and speak for this wisdom - the wisdom of the heart.

It is not a passive wisdom or an indecisive fence sitting or a moral cowardice, but - a fierce voice that refuses to rest in one place for long - a dynamic voice that has an inherent sense of the justice of the whole - a radical voice that is not content with opinion but wants to find the root of the problem.

It is a voice that will speak to the polarized pacifist about the need sometimes to fight and will speak to the warrior about the need for compassion and restraint.

It is a voice that will move in support of those decisions made in accord with the heart on either side.

The heart is an organ of fire and the seat of 'straight knowledge'.

It does not need consistency because it is its very function to be true to the greatest good. It does not need to espouse principles, it is constructed out of them. It does not need to 'take a stand' because it stands up for the whole as naturally as it pumps blood to all the organs of the body.

Following the strange wisdom of the heart as well as the mind has taken me on the following journey so far.

I am in agreement with the need for a universal set of human values and I also support the need for diversity in nations as well as the recognition of different levels of development.

I support the implementation of international law as a mechanism for international justice and despair at the lack of capacity yet for the UN as a body able to do this.

I admire the USA's capacity to respond to injustice and advocate the principle of freedom at the same time as I despair about what I perceive as gung-ho arrogance and naivety.

I think the Iraqi dictatorship is outdated and tyrannical and I support the Iraqi people in finding their own solutions as much as possible.

I was against the US and Britain going in without UN sanction and now that they are there I want them to win as quickly and cleanly as possible.

I admire the bravery of all those who will die in this battle and grieve for all those who will be left to pick up the pieces.

I believe in war AND I believe in peace.

And more, much more, I believe in humanity and our capacity to overcome hatred and partisanship, to heal and move forward wiser and stronger, to forgive, to fiercely protect what is true, beautiful and good, to fight for and foster freedom. Why do I believe this? Because these are all functions of the human heart and I know about the invincibility of the heart.

And I am not alone. I am one with all those who know that their opinions do not matter much but trust in their capacity to act anyway and to move with what is happening rather than what they think ought to happen or worse, ought to have happened. And yes I know all about the need to take a stand.

And so what I would add to the debate is this:

It sometimes pays to be wary of the game that would have you take sides or be relegated to the margins. The middle does not have to be a passive fearful place where the mindless vacillate. It can be a place of fierce loving, of dynamic surrender and a fight for the whole. A place where not knowing can form a context for radical actions, a place where living with uncertainty creates a tension that can open the door to new kind of power.'

Glenys comments:
While after much soul searching, I decided to support the war, I can see that this person is genuinely struggling to grapple with the issue in a mental way.