"To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless." - G.K. Chesterton



It's easy to love the lovable, pardon the pardonable, believe the believable and hope for the hopeful. But those aren't the real tests, those are the daily defaults. No... love, forgiveness, trust, faith, hope, honour and dignity are only valid when challenged. They only take on meaning when their meaning is questioned. We can say we love one another, or we forgive an unkind word or action, or we believe in peace, or we hope for a better world for our kids, but some words are only meaningful if they're universal. Those are the words of morality, ethics and goodness.

But none of us is perfect. Surely good enough has to be good enough. There are some who are just simply unlovable, there are crimes and sins which demand no pardon, there are unbelievable truths...we see them, or variations of the truth, reported on the news every day. How can we reconcile the requirement that concepts such as morality and ethics... the very basic that constitutes each of us as a human being separate from a mere animal classification... how do we reconcile that those are measures of perfection with the fact that we're not perfect? Can you be 90% moral? Is it ok to maintain your ethical standards 'usually'?

Is it sufficient that we just try? After all, that's what happens in reality. We try. Some try a whole lot harder than others. Some personal standards conflict with others. If morality is fixed in stone, and mine is at variance with yours, is solution or resolution possible? Is one of us 'wrong'? Is one of us more ethical than the other, or are we just different? Can two different ethical systems both be equally accurate and useful? If so, shouldn't they each allow for that? Shouldn't we allow for others to have diametrically opposite views, beliefs, fundamentals? Why the search for universal truth if there is no such thing? Who would recognize it as such if there is such a thing?

I would suggest that there is indeed such a thing as universal truth. The assumption inherent in that phrase is that there is a single common universal truth. It assumes that the same truth applies to everyone. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine that the same truth applies to any two people. So why shouldn't a universal truth take into account the individuality of the population that it applies to? Of course, it must. That's the only way (that I can see, anyway) for one to exist. The only other possibility would be for all individuals to somehow come to a mass agreement, and that obviously isn't going to happen.

Some would make the case that the journey to constantly improve on these matters, the only ones that truly matter, is what defines individual purpose. Some just default into a daily existence, and let the chips fall where they may. Others are so practiced and comfortable with their own existence that it defaults for them. They naturally do the 'right' thing. The ones who do this most frequently, most consistently, most selflessly are usually the ones who get labelled as role models, or idols, or heroes.

What of the rest of us? We plod through our days, dealing with issues as they arise, hoping that our background, our experience, our skills, our beliefs will be sufficient to get us through any crisis we might face, real or imagined. By most measures, that's enough, at least, if our goal is to just 'get by'. But it's those life-moments, those major decision points that are governed by our higher standards which end up defining us truly as who we are. All the rest is window-dressing. It's those moments. The one where you step in to break up the fight between strangers, the one where you gain enough courage to leave a toxic relationship, the one where you nurse someone else through their problems because they can't do it alone. Those are the moments, the moments when our beliefs, our morals, our ethics are tested that we define ourselves.

Those who have determined that they are worth the risk, whatever the risk might be, have reached a level of understanding that cannot be taught, only experienced. The personal tragedy in a lot of lives is that we sell ourselves too short. We either fail to see the opportunities that our experiences present us with, or we turn down the opportunity to put ourselves to the test when it really matters. In either case, we miss opportunities for growth, we slide past the understanding that comes with challenge, we forego the value that we truly are. We forget to be who we are.

It makes living easier in a sense, but superficial in another. Most of us automatically adjust to some kind of unsettled equilibrium between the two, and slosh around in the uncertainties of our own blackness.



PEACE.

Posted by Evydense on Monday, May 29, 2006 at 8:48 a.m. | Permalink