THE POINT OF AGREEMENT

Materialism forces people to think in terms of reality! . but there are artistically trained people, like myself, that sometimes get to feel that even that concept is romantic. I was reminded of that paradox by reading Zen and The ART of Motorcycle Maintenance. On page 70, Robert Pirsig explains understanding as a dichotomy of the classical need to organize facts (by accepting them) contrasted by a romantic spirit of fantastic hope (for improvement.) There was an effort on his part to balance the two within the limits of an educational system that drove him crazy. As a young idealistic lecturer, he was serious about presenting the curriculum but he couldn't find an inclusive method to teach the diversity of students he was yearning to inspire, so he dared to question authority.

Freedom seems like a lesson that can be taught but it feels more like a living entity that needs care to be maintained. To be the same as everyone else wouldn't even need the concept of freedom to exist, yet isn't that what being equal implies? It was the diversity of individual rights (for creative adaptation) that inspired the Founding Fathers to craft convert-able concepts of relative freedom that could keep growing.

The most important pamphlet published at the time was entitled Common Sense. Thomas Paine introduces his argument against monarchy in the first two paragraphs (posted on my links.) The point was that mankind tends to be supportive until a power emerges that wants to punish someone or take control over others. Judgment distracts us from the appreciation that can come from just being together as acceptable participants of a culture. Common mistakes need restorative reflexes, not punitive ones.

To blame, shame or threaten projects the most disagreeable feelings, so could that behavior be an excess of a conflicted nature? I contend that conflict resolution is where freedom is created, so a conflicted nature is also opportunity. I suggest opinions are medicinal exercises in controlled doses but giving up an opinion is for freedom's sake. Defending opinions beyond a certain point is being enslaved by them, well at least victimized.

When awareness entered living beings (to become humans) the search for freedom began recognizing ways to take it from others, both freedom and awareness. It is ironic to watch how some people can actually convince others that they don't want it so they get others to give it to them. Advantage taking is unbalanced behavior. This may project how assurance gets sold as insurance, like acceptable protection rackets.

The main purpose of a conflicted universe is that there is power potential in confusion, certainty is closure to "imply" a balance. Everybody wants maturity, but isn't that when you cash in your bond to pay-off your need for credit? Do you want your life to be without need for credit? Can I suggest confusion shouldn't be as embarrassing as denial?

Why can't we all agree to disagree in the graceful enjoyment of wonder? You may wonder why I have to seem so confused most times, maybe it's because my life is so wonder full!?
The best qualities of living come from being agree-able, especially with a questionable nature, so that just might be the best measure of being healthy.
Is it too romantic to hope agreement is the equal right to individuality?
Let's share the power of encouraging questions without the fear of an overpowering answer. I hope I inspire questions because the point is to allow for opinions to agree that debate qualifies freedom.
I wish you much discussion.