It is in the understanding of ourselves that fear comes to an end. If the individual is to grapple with life from moment to moment, if he is to face its intricacies, its miseries and sudden demands, he must be infinitely pliable and, therefore, free of theories and particular patterns of thought.
Jiddu Krishnamurti, Education and the Significance of Life
Fear permeates the lives of almost all, if not all, people. It leads people to do things outside the bounds of their character. Its visceral pulse can drive people to the depths of human depravity or to the paralysis of unquestioned compliance. It is a powerful force that can destroy any sense of humanity we might feel towards others and towards ourselves. It is the most humbling of human emotions and can, if not recognized, rule a peron's life without the individual ever realizing it.
Jiddu Krishnamurti, the 20th century Indian humanistic philosopher and spiritual teacher, spoke of fear often, and in particular the facing and overcoming of fear, as a gateway to true freedom. Freedom from fear is the human condition sought by all, religious and spiritual adepts in particular. Belief in Jesus as the son of God, for example, claims freedom from eternal damnation. Belief in and practice of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Noble Path claims the end of samsara, the eternal rebirth into a life of suffering. The practice of martyrdom through jihad bis saif, or struggle with the sword (Islamic holy war) claims divine acceptance and victory over the infidel.
But Krishnamurti believed that subservience to any doctrine, religious, spiritual or otherwise, in an effort to free one's self from the suffering of human existence or the possibility of an unbearable afterlife is nothing more than a form of self enslavement. In an effort to understand and overcome human suffering, people enslave themselves to religious ritual and dogma which ultimately binds themselves to a particular course of action. Krishnamurti thus demands an individual be "infinitely pliable" and "free of theories and particular patterns of thought" in order to be truly free.
With this thesis, Krishnamurti descends a slippery slope as he does not go on to describe an ethics commensurate with this stunning proclamation, leaving open the non-sensical, but quite easily drawn, conclusion that one's ethics could be "infinitely pliable", an invitation to a most obscene form of moral relativism.
Moral relativism is reckless, weak, and cowardly. Strength and courage lie in a reliance on and a judicious execution of what students of philosophy call "first principles". To use the commonly accepted definition, first principles are a set of basic, foundational propositions or assumptions that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. In other words, first principles require a certain amount of "faith". What differentiates faith in philosophical first principles from faith in religious first principles is their reliance on logical rigor, deductive in particular, vice emotional or metaphysical desire as is the case with religious first principles. Ethical and just first principles are necessary to guide right action, and, if action is taken, an assurance that just action is taken.
Freedom through the "understanding of ourselves" of which Krishnamurti speaks is a noble and achievable human endeavor, though it cannot be attained, as Krishnamurti argues, through "infinitely pliable" stances which are, by definition, categorically weak due to a lack of ethical authority. Freedom is only achieved through true and unfettered choice, and this choice can only be achieved through the unequivocal denial, and active fight against, any form of enslavement and its consequences.
To ground this particular thought in today's current political battle over the war in Iraq and the larger war with Islamic radicalism, first principles are an absolute necessity. The possibility of enslavement to an authority foreign to our western, democratic sensibilities exists. I ask that we as a country look hard and look deep for what it is we are willing to fight for without hesitation. A line must be drawn and enforced. Succumbing to a fear of outcomes shows a decadent lack of courage and opens the door to vacillation and hesitation revealing weakness and cowardice to our enemy. Courage ensures action without hesitation no matter what the situation or cost.
Only then can we attain true freedom.
3 comments:
This is like what I wrote on my blog except it's much better. And you use bigger words. And references.
Courage is an odd thing. I think we are both talking about emotional courage-- courage of character. The question is how to develop it. I think we both believe that the physical is the key as fear is a physiological response. It's not just in our heads though it may start there. When fear forces us to do things, it's because it has gripped us physically and unless we can escape from that grip, we are under its control. I like Aristotle's distinctions of the 5 types of courage in Nicomachean Ethics. But I think we can make further cuts.
People like to say that emotional courage is more important and more difficult to master than physical courage. I think that's true but only if you possess physical courage. I don't know many men who have one without the other.
This was a really good post. I have a hard time writing anything though I feel I should in some odd way just to let you know. I think it is one of the best things you've written.
i do not know about better but I certainly appreciate the compliment.
I think all writers have a difficult time writing. I know I do. I am constantly going back to blog entries and re-writing them. This one I have re-written like 8 or 9 times including a substantial re-write just before I posted this...and probabaly will re-write again.
I think it was Robert Lewis Stevenson that when asked if he enjoyed writing, said he enjoyed "having written". I know that is how I feel, but I also very much enjoy the process.
I think you write better than you think you do. You write clear pieces filled with what you really believe. There is no artiface in the positions you take. Your written voice is very similar to your spoken voice which gave me the impression writing came easy to you. And you can tell that your writing is getting better and better. Just go back and read previous entries. You will see what I mean.
I definately think that your post "Why We Must Win" and this one are talking about the same things. We just use different forms of expressing it.
Really good rewrite. I like what you say about the slippery slope of relativism. About how being "infinitely pliable" can lead to the complete breakdown of morality. Bruce Lee used to talk about the difference between having "no form" and having no "form" -- the difference being one is infinitely pliable and the other is just poor form. I guess another way of putting it is "formlessness" and no 'form,'
I remember when I first started training Jeet Kune Do concepts. I advanced at a much faster rate than many other students. I think this was due to the fact that I had a strong foundation in the traditional arts. Jeet Kune Do Concepts wasn't a shortcut for me. It was the evolution of my personal art. I still don't believe that a person should train JKD Concepts without a formal grounding in a tradtional art whatever that art may be.
Learning to stick to rules instills something that is rounded out by a more emancipating doctrine. But without the rules, there is nothing to be freed from. And in the martial arts, that just leads to a hodge podge of garbage, switchign from art to art with no sense of purpose.
I liked this rewrite a lot.
Post a Comment