Thursday, November 18, 2010
Gauging Inferior and Superior People Prt. 3
We continue the week with the third part of my conversation on Gauging Inferior and Superior People.
Paraphrased: If a person has a mind of their own and the ability to use it, then it's acceptable to allow his assessment of himself to influence our assessment of him. Jesus did his best to cultivate righteousness (superior qualities) where He could.
My Response: And WHO would you say *doesn't* have a mind of their own? Which person would you "assess" to be mindless? Which persons would you say don't have the ability of discernment?
This is what is unavoidable once we give ourselves the power to begin assessing "inferior" and "superior" traits in others uninvited. This is negative and is, indeed, a subtle way of feeding ego. There is nothing "humble" about declaring other people are mindless and incapable of discernment.
Was that really what [Jesus] was doing? Was he really trying to empower others into believing they were superior? Or was he attempting to show them, through His love, that prostitutes and 'undesirables' were worthy people, that they had self-worth, that His father loved them and believed them valuable, and that they should love themselves just as much and refrain from doing anything harmful to themselves?
Wasn't this precisely the reason why He went amongst the most egregious "sinners"? So that they might know self-love?
Wasn't His business here on earth to show people how to live with love for one another? Didn't He come to share God's will that they give up the "stoning" of women and the like and learn to love their neighbor? Sharing the value of love WAS his business. He didn't come to teach us to "assess" one another and "evaluate" who is superior or inferior so that we might disengage from one another.
He came to show us that we need not fear mingling with sinners (through His actions) but that we are to love one another as God loves us.
Paraphrased: The accuracy of an interpretation depends on the skills of the interpreter. Intuition also plays a large part in the assessment of others.
My Response: I would add that the quality of the interpretation is also dependent on their motivation, their own self-awareness, and their knowledge of humanity in general. Intuitiveness can be faulty if the lens applied is dirty--or complicated by the log in our own eye.
Yet I would also suggest that there are many who would assess the behavior of another based on a hypothetical "what would I do" that can often lead to a false assessment as well. Which brings in objectivity and the impossibility of accuracy other than when it comes to ones own self.
Simply because I was able to find a way to lay to rest the traumas I have experienced and move through those life-altering episodes, does not mean that another will have found *a* solution, let alone the same one(s) I have. While our experiences may be parallel, the uniqueness of each individual doesn't allow a one-size-fits-all solution, as I'm sure you're aware.
It is not so much the aspects that deal with each individual's internal spiritual journey that I have taken issue with. It is the belief that one has the *ability* to assess another person accurately, either to the negative or the positive.
Nourishment: In cultures that rely on insects for protein, they find ways to make what would be repulsive to others, a positive in their lives. I don't believe that we have sole control over the 'nutrition' in our lives. Yes, we can make positive choices, but negatives will always have their effect on us. We are 'porous' that way, absorbing the world around us.
As to adaptation: While I agree that adaptation is part of survival, we are much more than merely survivalists. I believe that within each one of us is the power to exert our own selves into any environment, both for greater or lesser 'good' or 'evil.'