Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) 1909
When perspectives clash, we do well to keep three dimensions in mind: affirming our common humanity, trying to understand our differences, and cherishing the unique personality of every individual. To disparage the notion of a common humanity (since it is so differently conceived from one culture to another) and to overlook the unique individual (since individuals are more typical than they suspect), and to consider people only in terms such as gender or race or class is to produce a new kind of sexism or racism or classism. The three dimensions of identity—humanity, group memberships, and unique personality—enrich each other. What it means to be human includes gender, race, class, etc., and personal uniqueness. What it means to be a man or a woman includes being human and unique. What it means to be an individual is a certain way of being a human, with all the variables we share. To appreciate persons in such a balanced way need not hobble critique. A call for humane discourse is not a bland plea to welcome any perspective whatsoever as the equal of every other. Challenge is one of the forms of genuinely human engagement; if it proceeds from righteous indignation, that is to be distinguished from implicitly murderous anger. Critique at its best is an exercise of respect.
Openness to both sides in a longstanding tension is evident in “A Vision of India’s History” by Nobel Prize-winning Bengali poet, educator, and man of letters, Rabindranath Tagore. Tagore portrays two poles of leadership in India: (1) the conservative Brahmins, with their metaphysical genius, upholding the foundations of the society, and (2) the liberal Kshatrias, with their warmth of love generating waves of brotherhood that transcend caste boundaries. Tagore is lucid about the distortions to which each of these groups is liable, but his point is that each has its role to play in history. His idea of history as an ongoing, cyclic process alternating between the forces of conservative preservation and the dynamism of liberal expansion does not raise the questions of which liberties should today be regarded as basic and what rights are to be sought in a progressive and sequenced agenda for the future. But Tagore’s desire for the liberation of India from submission to English people, language, and culture was matched by his campaign for cooperation between East and West. His nationalism expressed itself in devotion to lifting India to its mission as a bearer of universal truth, purity, and beauty, as can be seen in his best known poem.
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms toward perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action–
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
Tagore’s clear awareness of ideals led him in 1915 to write to an English friend these words of encouragement at a time when Europe’s optimism about progress was being smashed by World War I. “Will Europe never understand the genesis of the present war, and realize that the true cause lies in her own growing skepticism toward her own ideals—those ideals that have helped her to be great? She seems to have exhausted the oil that once lighted her lamp. Now she is feeling a distrust against the oil itself, as if it were not at all necessary for her light.” Tagore, though not an historian, shows that insights into history can come from outside the profession.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Tagore3.jpg
As we view the many conflicting contentions of different individuals, groups, and nations, we are sometimes bewildered and wonder how we will ever straighten it all out. Sometimes we assign evil as the motive for those who are different from us.
Liberalism drives us forward while conservatism holds us back. Both of these forces are needed if we are to be successful and reach our transcendent goal for this planet. Liberalism can reach dangerous velocities and if left uncheck will leave the highway of life when it encounters one of the its unavoidable curves. Conservatism is the brake that prevents our speed from reaching dangerous velocities and derailing when we encounter one of the unavoidable curves of life. Besides it takes time to adjust and adapt to change, even when it is recognized as a good thing.
But there is a plan for resolving all of these difficulties even though it is not made fully available to us, but reveals more and more of itself as we moves down the road of life and become more truth discerning. And there is a good reason for all of this mystery. Some of the changes we face as human beings are most disagreeable to us, and if we knew what was coming next, we would be tempted to avoid them or delay them as much as possible; some of the changes we consider favorable, and would be tempted to “jump the gun” before we are adequately prepared for them.
Consider the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle: When we first start out to assemble this puzzle, we have a mass of pieces that don’t resemble the completed puzzle, but as we work, to find the pieces that fit, we increasingly begin to realize the final picture, and when we are nearing the completion of the puzzle, we are able to approximate what the final picture will be.
And likewise will all the discordant voices be unified in harmony and they will all be held together by the all powerful glue of God’s love, and it will be a thing of beauty for ever as a monument to the wisdom of God.
The unification of diversity is beauty, and this beautiful vehicle is powered by the engine of truth, travels along the highway of goodness and is driven by God who is taking us on an endless journey where we discover new manifestations of truth, beauty, and goodness.
Dr. Perry
This is your most fun comment to read with its metaphors, vividness, and imagination. Spirituality puts on a colorful garment and gives us a hug.
As we view the many conflicting contentions of different individuals, groups, and nations, we are sometimes bewildered and wonder how we will ever straighten it all out. Sometimes we assign evil as the motive for those who are different from us.
Liberalism drives us forward while conservatism holds us back. Both of these forces are needed if we are to be successful and reach our transcendent goal for this planet. Liberalism can reach dangerous velocities and if left uncheck will leave the highway of life when it encounters one of the its unavoidable curves. Conservatism is the brake that prevents our speed from reaching dangerous velocities and derailing when we encounter one of the unavoidable curves of life. Besides it takes time to adjust and adapt to change, even when it is recognized as a good thing.
But there is a plan for resolving all of these difficulties even though it is not made fully available to us, but reveals more and more of itself as we moves down the road of life and become more truth discerning. And there is a good reason for all of this mystery. Some of the changes we face as human beings are most disagreeable to us, and if we knew what was coming next, we would be tempted to avoid them or delay them as much as possible; some of the changes we consider favorable, and would be tempted to “jump the gun” before we are adequately prepared for them.
Consider the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle: When we first start out to assemble this puzzle, we have a mass of pieces that don’t resemble the completed puzzle, but as we work, to find the pieces that fit, we increasingly begin to realize the final picture, and when we are nearing the completion of the puzzle, we are able to approximate what the final picture will be.
And likewise will all the discordant voices be unified in harmony and they will all be held together by the all powerful glue of God’s love, and it will be a thing of beauty for ever as a monument to the wisdom of God.
The unification of diversity is beauty, and this beautiful vehicle is powered by the engine of truth, travels along the highway of goodness and is driven by God who is taking us on an endless journey where we discover new manifestations of truth, beauty, and goodness.
Dr. Perry
This is your most fun comment to read with its metaphors, vividness, and imagination. Spirituality puts on a colorful garment and gives us a hug.
I had a similar thought the other day, although not so eloquently conceived or constructed. I was noticing a problem within many circles of moral and political discourse where we speak of people when the issue should focus on persons, and persons where we should focus on people. What’s more is that when engaging in macro discourses, which are certainly important, the individual — one’s own self — is often left out of the equation. My own project of the art of living — an imperfect one, always on the way of completion — recognizes that the media for the creation of myself involves not only what I bring as an individual, but also what the others closest to me bring, as well as the world I inhabit. So, these three things — my personhood, my community/family, and my world — form who I am, but how to respond to each of these is quite tricky.
Popular discourse in our culture seems very much mired in the two extremes of individuality and “people” in the abstract. Focusing on our individuality can foster many great things, and the recognition of our successes in that category can be life affirming as it can establish proper pride, self-esteem, and motivating self-love. But it can also move quickly into vanity, narcissism, and hubris. Emphasizing the abstract notion of people and the accompanying sense of rights can also be a powerful of addressing big problems and instituting needed social changes. But it is this power of addressing the many where the individual — the proper name — is neglected. Recently, I wrote a short piece about friendship, and how it has a different moral structure than our usual “thin” accounts of ethics. Most ethics address “people” where the goal is to find what is universal in all of us. But friendship is about finding the unique beauty of a person. I think of Montaigne’s lovely quote about a dear friend of his who died young; it went something like this: “If you ask me why I loved him, I am afraid I cannot say anything other than because it was he, because it was I.”
Wisdom, the way I have tried to enact this virtue, is taking care to acknowledge and properly address what needs to be addressed, and to whom that address is directed. Sometimes we need to take the wide and long view. Other times we need to address with tenderness and loving those closest to us in there unique individuality and personality. And lest we forget, it is also important to address ourselves with proper clarity, so that we can improve.
Charles, thanks for another thoughtful contribution! There are so many worthwhile thoughts here I don’t know where to enter the conversation. I’ll choose one thought.
Between the individual and everyone are groups; and if we can find important groupings of people as related to some high purpose, we may end up with a handful of groups to address (in one way or another) that cover the territory in an important way. This is a clumsy restatement of an idea of Plato’s in the Philebus 16b-c, which he calls the “god-given method”: between the one universal and the infinite multitude are a manageable number of essential groups or subcategories; if we can identify the subcategories that really matter (the essential ones), it leverages our inquiry greatly. (For example, between the individual and the genus are species.)
But I recall recall hearing Terry Waite speak of his being taken hostage in Lebanon by captors who wanted money for his release. He spoke of hostage takers as of three kinds: thugs, persons with legitimate grievances (that could be negotiated), and religious fanatics. I find the typology helpful in that I imagine that a person can fall to some degree in more than one of these categories.
When I ask about the factors that make me who I am, I usually use the following list: genetics, environment (natural and social), personal decisions, and God. When reflecting on spiritual experience, I sometimes have occasion to recognize the possible functioning of a number of these factors. Just opening my mind to this array of possibilities I find to be very balancing.
I had a similar thought the other day, although not so eloquently conceived or constructed. I was noticing a problem within many circles of moral and political discourse where we speak of people when the issue should focus on persons, and persons where we should focus on people. What’s more is that when engaging in macro discourses, which are certainly important, the individual — one’s own self — is often left out of the equation. My own project of the art of living — an imperfect one, always on the way of completion — recognizes that the media for the creation of myself involves not only what I bring as an individual, but also what the others closest to me bring, as well as the world I inhabit. So, these three things — my personhood, my community/family, and my world — form who I am, but how to respond to each of these is quite tricky.
Popular discourse in our culture seems very much mired in the two extremes of individuality and “people” in the abstract. Focusing on our individuality can foster many great things, and the recognition of our successes in that category can be life affirming as it can establish proper pride, self-esteem, and motivating self-love. But it can also move quickly into vanity, narcissism, and hubris. Emphasizing the abstract notion of people and the accompanying sense of rights can also be a powerful of addressing big problems and instituting needed social changes. But it is this power of addressing the many where the individual — the proper name — is neglected. Recently, I wrote a short piece about friendship, and how it has a different moral structure than our usual “thin” accounts of ethics. Most ethics address “people” where the goal is to find what is universal in all of us. But friendship is about finding the unique beauty of a person. I think of Montaigne’s lovely quote about a dear friend of his who died young; it went something like this: “If you ask me why I loved him, I am afraid I cannot say anything other than because it was he, because it was I.”
Wisdom, the way I have tried to enact this virtue, is taking care to acknowledge and properly address what needs to be addressed, and to whom that address is directed. Sometimes we need to take the wide and long view. Other times we need to address with tenderness and loving those closest to us in there unique individuality and personality. And lest we forget, it is also important to address ourselves with proper clarity, so that we can improve.
Charles, thanks for another thoughtful contribution! There are so many worthwhile thoughts here I don’t know where to enter the conversation. I’ll choose one thought.
Between the individual and everyone are groups; and if we can find important groupings of people as related to some high purpose, we may end up with a handful of groups to address (in one way or another) that cover the territory in an important way. This is a clumsy restatement of an idea of Plato’s in the Philebus 16b-c, which he calls the “god-given method”: between the one universal and the infinite multitude are a manageable number of essential groups or subcategories; if we can identify the subcategories that really matter (the essential ones), it leverages our inquiry greatly. (For example, between the individual and the genus are species.)
But I recall recall hearing Terry Waite speak of his being taken hostage in Lebanon by captors who wanted money for his release. He spoke of hostage takers as of three kinds: thugs, persons with legitimate grievances (that could be negotiated), and religious fanatics. I find the typology helpful in that I imagine that a person can fall to some degree in more than one of these categories.
When I ask about the factors that make me who I am, I usually use the following list: genetics, environment (natural and social), personal decisions, and God. When reflecting on spiritual experience, I sometimes have occasion to recognize the possible functioning of a number of these factors. Just opening my mind to this array of possibilities I find to be very balancing.