I wrote the following paragraphs a few days ago and then let them sit. After reading your pieces, I was sore tempted to edit them. To edit myself and my thoughts to align better or rather, less contradictorily with yours. But then I paused. The point of a dialogue, the meaning of a conversation is really a revelation: to reveal to one another the areas of disagreement and through disagreement refine our understanding of the argument but also of each other and ourselves. Those areas of disagreement reveal our assumptions, calling them out to the daylight where we either accept them or modify them. I don’t want to call them biases because that has such a negative connotation. We all have our framework, our schema upon which we hang the pretty baubles of new knowledge. But working through the disagreement and refining our understanding means the location of those baubles may change and with that change in location may come a new understanding, a deeper intuition of the truth, a surprising new clarity of something that was before only hazy. Such a dialogue must be, above all things, honest to the reader and the writer. Understanding comes through clarification. The hardest work is uncovering the question.
***
“Our task is to heal the internal split that tells us to override the feelings, intuition, and dream images that inform us of the truth of life. We must have the courage to live with paradox, the strength to hold the tension of not knowing the answers, and the willingness to listen to our inner wisdom and the wisdom of the planet that begs for change.”
There are two things that immediately jump to my attention with Maureen’s quote above. We must heal, yes, and we even must initiate that healing, but the power to heal comes from outside of ourselves. We must be receptive to the divine that wishes to heal us. We cannot heal ourselves because it is an infinite wound that requires an infinite band-aid so to speak. I realize this assertion needs to be proven with some kind of argument or evidence. I will take that on in another post with an analogy from St. John of the Cross in “The Living Flame of Love.” But for now, I would say that I don’t fully buy in that our task is to heal ourselves. That just places the burden of perfectionism squarely on my formerly type-A shoulders, which is as fair as pushing a glass of wine towards a recovering alcoholic.
Yes, the planet (all creation, really) begs for change because it is wounded with us, by us and because of us. I can treat my little corner of the planet with the respect that it deserves as a creation of the divine but I myself cannot calm the weather or do any of the other myriad of things we have been taught will make a change. There is still a way to be “pro-planet” within a completely materialistic framework that doesn’t help to “heal” anything. And that seems to me, what Maureen is getting at here. Experts have told us this, and taught us this, therefore if we follow their advice then all will be well on the planet. Not only do I not trust her experts, I don’t buy her premise. In my view, Nature has to become magic again, fully other and wild and unknowable in some deeper but still tangible way, in order for us to really understand what is meant by the “wisdom of the planet.” We cannot view nature as just a series of processes or inputs and outputs that we can muck with, change the ratio and get a different outcome and thereby “fix” anything.
I do agree that the internal split between intuition and evidence-based knowledge is the key area that needs healing. And not just in our souls but in the entire culture. That reasoning is like a cloud of smoke that has filled the earth and blinded us all to the light of a deeper way of knowing. Our materialist explanations fill us with hubris. We think we understand exactly how such and such a thing operates. We do not know the half of it. There are more things in this world, after all, than dreamed of in our philosophies.
I do agree that it is living in the paradox, living in the tension that we will find the answer. A paradox, as Benedict XVI said, is a contrast, not a contradiction and in the contrast, the fine lines of truth begin to etch out.
So, here in the introduction, we are already deep in new territory. What a marvelous journey this will be.
3 responses to “The First Step Out”
Jessica, I have to say that I’m not sure how to handle this dialogue. I am concerned about sinking the ship before it’s even finished its maiden voyage. I know that I need to keep writing, no matter what. I also know that I cannot go back to editing myself and silencing myself because what I write or say may not please someone, and for most of my life, I’ve done that. So, I respect your first paragraph, applaud you for it, and agree that it’s important for both of us.
At this point, I am thinking that we might want to refrain from directly addressing one another’s essays—perhaps until we get our sea legs. What do you think?
Yes! I have also been wondering about how we should proceed with the post/comment situation. And I know you have struggled with that need to curate your words for certain people/audiences. When I saw it about to happen in myself, I thought, “No, saying what I think without shame is the whole point of this exercise! I cannot edit.” So I, in no way, want to make you feel like you should be careful! I appreciate your candor so much and it has been inspiring and encouraging to me in my hesitancy and my own ongoing issues with voicelessness.
I agree – it would allow us to get less bogged down in details and feeling like we are continually preparing arguments to prove our points in each post and follow up comments. For now (and I write this after I have already commented on your latest post) let’s just read and process each other’s essays on our own. But continue to write from our own perspectives/experiences/thoughts/understandings/questions. Make sense?
I’m just so happy to have a friend to write with who can keep me inspired and committed and accountable to the project.
I’m happy that we’re in this together. 😊