Contradiction vs. Coexistence

(A better version - with art - is available at this following location: https://azotusdoghouse.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/contradiction-vs-coexistence-2/

I have no idea why the editing software here will not allow artwork to be added, but it essentially renders the article useless here.)

by Christopher MacDonald

In a nation that boasts over 310 million people and 250 million vehicles (that’s right!) it is often the bumper sticker that gets the most daily impressions.

Two bumper stickers below grab two important ideas that have been begging for an audience:

At first blush, the first would seem to be a refutation of the second and very popular notion of the peaceful coexistence of religious, spiritual, and (in later examples) even secular and scientific traditions. In all cases, these are approaches to truth either with a small or capital “T”.

But the reality of inherent contradictions between major worldviews doesn’t have to be at odds with coexistence at all. “Contradiction” and “Coexistence” can “Coexist”. In fact most of us practice in our lives daily.

In the first bumper sticker, Jesus's comforting words to His disciples about His imminent departure from them is hijacked into making an across the board statement (John 14:6) to a Postmodern world about the competitive “coexistence” of spiritual ideas and views of Truth (with a capital “T”). The above bumper sticker attempts to do the same from the Koran, eh…but probably not produced by a knowledgeable Muslim.

This one reminds me of what some creative person should do with an out-of-context biblical text like 1 Sam 18:27 (on a dowry consisting of “a stack of foreskins” or maybe “PARBAR” followed underneath with “~We have no idea what this bible word means.”)

In either case, the citing of a spiritual passage is meant to trump (can I still use that word?) and reinterpret it with a graphically-enhanced message above it.

For our purposes, let’s set aside the inflammatory one (the latter) and focus on “Contradiction”. For me, without the scripture it stands just fine. Does anyone still believe that all major religious, spiritual and secular traditions do not inherently present different worldviews?

Really?

Where and when?

I mean all this classing in the streets with fifteen different groups showing up to protest, counter-protest - and some pretending to be of other groups and these are not even - in many cases groups that present some sort of ultimate world view.

So it is all "really just one big happy soup?" You donlt really believe that. Not really.

So what do most of us mean by “coexist”? I think we simply mean “allowed to exist with respect and with safety”. I will return to this with greater attention toward the end.

For now, those would seem to be the two crucial areas: safety and respect. And that opens up whole new ways of exploring what is true and what may be True.

Current Context

In a Postmodern world the rationalistic assumptions of Modernity have been rejected. Despite impressive technological and medical advances, the utopian goals of the Enlightenment failed. The grand experiment where humanity shook off the fetters of Religion and took up the reigns of existence only resulted in advanced bloodshed, world wars, the A bomb and now, global terrorism. What started with such loud promise at storming of the Bastille in 1789, finally died with a whimper almost two centuries to the day later with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But let’s be clear: Postmodernism is simply a reaction and rejection of Modernity. It really has little to say itself beyond fashion and branding. It’s one tell-tale sign seems to be advanced Relativism.

But didn’t we have Relativism under Modernity? Yes, but our Modernist professors didn’t actually believe it. All the time they took in “deconstructing” religion and just about everything else, they ignored Heisenberg: that they themselves were also in the test tube affecting results. That they also could be deconstructed and that their position of objectivity was foolish and doomed. The fact they could say “There are no absolutes” (that being absolute) was kind of a give away, don’t you think?

Worse, by inflicting their “let’s boil everything down to it’s lowest common denominator” they did violence to each and every spiritual, religious, and yes…even secular worldview.

So now, within Postmodernism, we have a more practical and realistic Relativism. As it stands, it still has a capital “R” because it trumps all else (no different than a Jesus quote or one misplaced text from the Koran do). At present, it can mean that all things are inherently equal and should coexist; or it can mean that all things should coexist but some ideas are better than others, or parts of ideas.

But again, it translates into respect and safety with simple goal of coexistence.

This fits in nicely with two ideas that would seem to have come to maturation: “Depth Pluralism” and “Relationalism”.

Understanding that the most basic of ground rules for both are respect and safety, I will explain both plainly then return to our original bumper sticker named “Contradiction: and see how it fares.

In reality we were just a bumper sticker away from dealing with intolerance on a philosophical level

Depth Pluralism

It is common knowledge that we live in a “pluralistic society”. As such, the greatest enemies are intolerance (which does not allow different or divergent points of view) and violence of any kind. It is this which the “Coexist” bumper sticker addresses.

What it does not address are the inherent (please note that) contrasts, connections, correlations and even contradictions between major worldviews.

Under Modernity this was mindlessly (or arrogantly) swept under the rug quickly as necessary for the greater good.

Whose? (Probably theirs).

In reality we were just a bumper sticker away from dealing with intolerance on a philosophical level: "Coexist.”

But can such a Reductionist Pluralism be of any use once we have silenced the guns and we wish to come out and live, explore and seek Truth?

No, it cannot because it fears the very thing it supposedly wanted to protect: divergence of viewpoint.

In direct contrast to a Reductionist Pluralism where all is really nothing; Depth Pluralism creates a safe and respectful forum for all worldviews and ideas to be seen in their own context, in their own fullness, and without being reduced at all.

Relationalism

I mention this in passing in answer to the question: “what is beyond Postmodernism”?

I think if we are smart it would be "Relationalism." It fits our growing understanding of the relational nature of ecological systems; it fits the way/core of who we continue to show ourselves to be as human beings; it can show the way for dismantling a competitive University/Science system which is inherently broken and ever-more disintegrated, in favor of a Science of Humanity that draws from the best lenses of each and every traditions, spiritual practice, hard science, social science, etc…looking for the same things we have been talking about: connection, correlations, contrast and contradiction. And we can do this “come-what-may”.

Who is talking about this? I am talking about this,.

Relationalism is to mere Coexistence what Depth Pluralism is to Pluralism.

Obviously there is more to this than my brief overview, but I felt it should be mentioned in harmony with Depth Pluralism. As important as our points of view are in approaching any question with depth, so our points of intention are just as crucial. Just taking an exploration of a subject from the adversarial need to utterly disprove a contrary view to working alongside each other to find what is true and relevant in an exploratory way is a huge step.

Our Jesus Bumper Sticker

If you allow every one of the world’s major religions and spiritual traditions to be what they are in their own context you will find some direct contradictions between them. So?

In fact some of the best teachers are the ones who freely admit this. I am a big Thich Nyat Hanh and Dalai Lama fan. Both of them wrote books on Jesus. I found Hanh’s book wanting because he too readily subsumed the clear Middle Eastern teaching of Jesus within his own Far Eastern Buddhism. Sure, he made some good points and he obviously had the best of intentions. Still, adding anything to any tradition after the fact is a subtraction, certainly if it is subsuming.

The Dalai Lama’s book did not make this obvious mistake. Where there was a clear divergence he stated it plainly with hands wide open.

So “coexistence” can happen on an even deeper level if tolerance moves beyond everyone having to be far less than what they truly are and simply agree to be mature and show respect and create a safe environment for exploration.

You will find contradictions, challenges and contrasts to be sure. You will you also find connections and correlations.

You may also find that these spiritual traditions and religions address different aspect of the human condition in significant ways. And this is something we are already use to processing. Each of us functions not with one solitary worldview but a mixture of them. When I get sick I approach it from a variety of different angles. I come at the illness from everything from a homeopathic, psychological, dietary, medical and spiritual point of view. These are not often in competition at all.

A great irony in all of this is that those who are so for “Coexist” in a Postmodern context often disavow the possibility of coexisting with a worldview that deals straight on with major issues like sin, death, and alienation, while also exhibiting judgment of others, hatred and scapegoating. But even more ironic is those who would so readily rush to embrace “Contradiction” in the name of God don’t seem to have the faith that in an open and free discussion about Truth that same God can and will show up in love and grace. Some even love "mystery" for Mmystery's sake or celebrate doubt as a sort of badge of real faith when it may or may not be. I would say the determining factor is often how much whining is involved.

Lastly, rushing to "coexisting" or a Joseph Campbell reductionist "soup" can often be a simple case of laziness in not wanting to do serious investigation into many traditions and allow them to truly shine in all their brightness. My own investigations have only led to better and deeper dialogs with people of other faiths, but we have not had to pretend that that we are always talking about exactly the same things. We are more grown up than that.

As for John 14:6. Contextually Jesus is not addressing other world views or faith claims at all. The disciples are worried that when He leaves them they will be abandoned and they won't "know the way." Jesus reassures them that He is "the way, the truth and the life and their sole way to the Father." who Jesus says they have seen by seeing Him. Almost as if he has said nothing, they reply "well show us the father and it will be enough."

We wouldn't do any better.

We are all idiots.

But that is our answer - or mine. "I don't know about you, but when it comes to being rescued out of this mess of lostness which ends in inevitable death? I am going with Jesus the God who became man, died the death I should have died and whose father raised Him from the dead so I will rise too.

"You might wanna consider it too."