PART 1
Now I am going to
write about this text: You may, if you so wish, skip directly to the text by finding”1’
It is the current version of a post in my blog
johnnysonneborn.blogspot.com, “The Most Important Principles.” It has been
greatly developed since the previous posted version, and I do not expect to add
to it.
[I will soon be
posting several recently-written short pieces.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MOST IMPORTANT
PRINCIPLES
This post is my attempt to crystallize some
standard teachings of Unificationism, especially as written in Exposition
of the Divine Principle, also in New Explanation of Unification
Thought, sometimes elaborating/explicating, while suggesting new
English terminology, (which are underlined.) in some cases. The
framework is partner theology/project theology.
The text is written from a humanist perspective so that it could
be used in all cultures, with a presenter tweaking according to the culture. [For Unificationists, I have inserted references to one or both of those
books. I am also informed by public talks by True Mother and a True Father’s spherical
diagram.] Although this opening segment covers much of chapter 1, it
is mostly about the chapter’s section 2.1: Give-and Take Action, and I am
hoping to receive critique. [In bracketed references to EDP, the first number
refers to the part of the book]
This first part begins
with an assumption. On the foundation of the assumption, general
principles are given, putatively elucidating how the human mind thinks.
PART 2 will set forth
principles relevant to our common life riddled with pain.
ASSUMPTION
1. Every
human being has the fundamental irrepressible impulse to give love to the
greatest scope imagined [NEUT 3.II.A].
1.1. Unlike
other species, a human being’s imagination becomes unlimited upon the person
reaching adolescence.
HUMAN MATURATION
2. Each
human develops toward spiritual and physical maturity by the force inherent in
the creation principle [EDP 1.1.2.3.1]. This has also been called
“innate intelligence”. Within the creation principle, there are sub-principles,
as follows.
3. Development
occurs through three stages: forming, growing, and
completing [1.1.5.2.1]. Jesus teaches an explication of these in Mark
4:26b-29.
3,1. Emotional
growth occurs when love is given and received, enabling giving of love to a greater
social scope, longer duration, and/or depth. (In Unificationism, the enabling
is caused by new truth given by God [1.6,31).
3.1.1 Action,
above, is intended to benefit its recipient. Since the recipient’s fundamental
impulse is to give love, it follows that the loving action should enable the
recipient to love more greatly.
.
RELATIONSHIPS AND
NETWORK
4. The existence of any entity can be
described as one or more four position foundations, which are networks of subject-object
relationships [I.I.1.2.3-4].
5. A subject-object
relationship exists in a project and is established/formed as follows:
[1.1.2.2] a would-be subject partner advertises as such in a new project;
another entity declares interest in becoming an object partner and gives
self-information, thus standing symbolically in the object position; the
subject partner expresses a desire for the other to be a substantial object
partner and states the processes and rules for the project; the other expresses
the desire to join the project as described. (In Unificationism all
relations somehow occur “through the agency of the fundamental energy of God.”
[1.1.2.1-2]. Subject-object projects exist between human beings and within a
human being, and we may describe such interrelationships in the microworld [1.1.1].
5.1 . Within a
project, an object-partner entity should obey any subject-partner’s directive
that is in accordance with the rules of the project: in the case of a project
of human beings, a person is always free to leave the project. (In a subproject
of the project HSA-UWC, even though the norm is always to obey, there is an
exception-- if a person thinks it likely that obeying the directive will result
in a catastrophe, he or she should write a message to the directive giver,
asking that person to send the message to that person’s subject partner,
requiring guidance.)
5
.2 . An object partner is not passive. The partner offers
information and may offer suggestions. As offerer, the partner is in the
subject position. Giving and responding, alternation of position, is continuous
[I.1.3.1.2]. Yet, the subject partner ultimately determines action,
having taken responsibility for the project and with a greater awareness of the
greater project within which the project is itself a sub-project. (In
Unification Theology, Heavenly Parent's project is the all-encompassing one.)
5.3. There are types of subject-object
partnerships. In one type, the subject partner has delegated to the object
partner responsibility for part of the project (with the object partner thus
poised to stand as the subject in a smaller project). The subject partner is
then bound to unite with and support whatever the object partner says or does.
5.3.1 In another type, functioning
according to the principle of dual purpose, the subject-partner is designated
to pursue investment toward widening or deepening the
project’s impact (purpose/interest of the whole); the
object-partner, being responsible for maintaining the project and developing it
(purpose/interest of the Individual), may warn the investing partner that the
risk involved in that investing appears intolerable, yet cannot override it
I think that the relationships in this horizontal form are ultimately
ones of increase and decrease, with those in the
other form ultimately ones of internal and external.
6. At least
when a project exists as a sub-project, it may be located in a diamond figure
quadruple base [1.1.4.3], as follows. At the diamond’s apex stands the greater
project; the narrower project’s subject partner and object partner stand at the
diamond’s sides; the fact of their union fills the remaining point. With this,
the occupant of any point may be seen in relation to that of any of the other
three points.
6.1 When
a project is aiming for a specific effect, the purpose of the effect, which is
the project, stands at the apex of a temporary quadruple base, with the result
at the bottom: then the subject partner or object partner takes the project
into consideration when choosing actions [NEUT I.2.A.]. When projects,
described as quadruple bases, exist in a hierarchy of ever greater projects,
activity exists in a spiral [1.2.2.4].
7. In
projects of persons (having minds) a subject partner is always expressing
love, and an object partner returning beauty.
ETHICS
8. The fundamental ethical
principle guiding thinking beings is that of dual interests [1 1 3 1]: an action chosen toward
fulfilling an interest of the self (object) should be taken only if it is hoped
that this will enable the person better to contribute towards the interest of
the whole project, represented by the subject, who proposed it,
while actions taken for the fulfillment of the interest of the whole should
always respect the dignity of individuals affected by it and facilitate the
attainment of their self-interests. [This duality may be the creation principle
itself: building upon an existing foundation – developing while maintaining a
foundation.]
9. God’s three blessings to each human being, told in
Judaism’s creation myth [11.3.1], embody complexification and indicate that a
perfectly mature human being takes the subject position toward any entity in
the natural world or to any angel [1.1.5.2].
THE IDEAL
CONCLUSION. We can imagine a reality in which
all persons live/act according to these principles – a world of lovingness and
joyfulness [1.15.3.2][1.2.4.6][1.3.1.2]. However, reality as we experience it
is one of sorrow as well as happiness and can be analyzed as featuring pain,
Impatience, fear, anger, and conflict.
PART 2
In my explanation of principles for painful
reality, my goals of crystallizing Unificationism and writing humanistically
necessarily diverge. The reader interested only in the principles derived from
this reality can search for the suggested “origin” of social and psychic pain,
or for ”10” for the principles.
I will begin with an analysis of
Unificationism’s corruption myth on the foundation of its creation myths adopted,
interpreted, and adapted from Judaism's. [For a humanistic telling of this
legend, find “Restatement”]
Almost all cultures
that survive have such a mythology that implicitly contain norms for social
relations and for individual behavior. The norms almost always support the
stability of family life, thus promoting the culture’s survival. Judaism's also
greatly values the lives of individuals. Judaism's core mythology was spread by
Jews, Christians, and Muslims to most of the world. It was in cultures developed
from this that productive industry was created. In modern times,
some of these cultures or sub- cultures abandoned the mythology, while keeping
the valuation of individual lives.
It is not unreasonable to think that the
ancestors of all human beings living even before the arrival of civilization
(other ancestral lines having died out) were twins, having evolved from a
previous species in an opportune environment. During childhood the boy and girl
separated from the maternal species and formed a project whose goal was the
full maturation of each. They exchanged love and beauty, helped each other, and
exercised their creativity in exploring the environment. The girl, intuitively
preparing for motherhood, was more protective of foundations they had
developed. The boy, intuitively preparing for developing the foundations, was
more adventuresome.
[1.3.1]. In
Unificationism, which interprets Genesis 3, they are Adam and Eve.
The
fruit equals Eve’s love. Its tree equals Eve. Eve’s eating the fruit
equals making her love one with her. It is also described as consummating her
love [1.2 4]. The tree of life equals a perfectly mature human being; in its
first mention, Adam [1.2.1]. This, combined with God’s statement that if the
humans ate from the tree of life, they would live forever [1.2.1], and
with one of the reasons that God did not act to stop the Fall, indicate that if
he had, humans would have remained in an immature state, having their love
become one with them prematurely [1.2.6.3]. The serpent equals the
archangel Lucifer [1.2], created as the children’s servant and teacher and as
the channel of God’s love to other angels [1.2.2.1].
[1.2.2.1] Lucifer,
recognizing that God’s love for the children was immensely greater than that
for him, naturally felt envy. This developed into jealousy of Adam to the point
where he considered trying to replace him as the central channel of God’s
love. It is not clear why he decided to dominate Eve, other than
that Genesis says so (its purpose being to lead to Genesis 4, in which, Eve
refuses to take responsibility for her action and is penalized with her desire
being toward Adam).
[1.2.2.1.] On
a fateful day, when Eve had matured to the top of the growing stage, the
archangel proposed to her a project for the consummation of her love, with
himself standing in the subject-partner position. Eve, naturally respecting the
angel, responded with interest in such consummation. Thus, through the agency
of the Universal Prime Energy, the two formed a reciprocal base. The angel then
began to outline the steps to be taken and desirable consequences. At this
point, the force inherent in the Principle that had been endowed to Eve by God
to guide her maturation and through which God would govern her during her
immaturity (growth being intrinsically autonomous) pushed her to pause, and
this was manifested in her original mind and in the formation of her
conscience. There were two reasons for this: according to the creation
principle, it was one of the kinds of activities that were meant to be shared;
it was meant to be performed when she had become more mature emotionally and
able to imagine the thoughts and feelings of her twin. Eve expressed
reluctance to the angel, and he responded with counter arguments. Eve, immature
in intellect, not yet stable emotionally and already beginning to feel horizontal
love for the angel, abandoned her faith in the internal guidance and its
warning, and greedily responded, and the two established a common base and
began give-and-take action. Eve, becoming enraptured by the Archangel’s
proposal – her developing self-interest desire to consummate her love ignoring
the interest for the whole – her sibling relationship with Adam – increasingly
felt foreboding. Eventually, her love for the activity, self love, overrode the
power of her innate intelligence, and she became unable to stop, as also did
the archangel, and impulsively they became one.
The angel felt
dread, having abandoned faith that God would eventually fulfill all his desires
[1.2.2.1]. Eve, in their oneness, received the dread from the angel.
He
came to be called Satan [1.2] because of his mind to accuse God and to accuse
Adam [1.2.3].
[1.2.2.2] Eve,
having abandoned the project she shared with Adam for the archangel’s, tried to
reenter it based on her feeling of fear and to undo the cause of her painful
guilty conscience. Having learned clearly about sexual intercourse, Eve proposed
to Adam what was, in fact, a new project, in which she would stand as the
subject partner. Adam, seeing Eve in the confused state and having abandoned
their project, was weakened and, after not so much hesitation that was prompted
by his principled force and conscience, readily entered into reciprocal
relationship and then formed a common base with Eve. The ensuing giving and
receiving action then propelled them into substantial sexual intercourse. The
Archangel thus came to dominate not only Eve but also, through her, Adam and,
through them the natural world.
Unificationism
gives among God’s reasons for refraining from intervening in these tragic
developments, respect for the dignity of the humans who had been given free-will
responsibility to grow according to the creation principle [1.2.6.1],
and refusal to accept their denying growth to the completing stage,
which would have prevented the realization of t-he ideal for each to become
perfectly mature, [1.2.6.2] symbolized by the tree of life.
The
boy and girl, each refusing to accept responsibility for their selfish actions,
could not relate in full harmony. When they finally did beget children, their
internal confusion and their disharmony affected even their reproductive
process as well as the nature of their parenting.
Human beings, conceived and
growing up in such circumstances, descendants of the couple whose choice to
follow the selfish will overrode the force inherent in the creation principle,
having inherited dread, guilt, and fear, have been continuingly tempted to act
in violation of the principle of dual interests [1.2], even though
many display altruistic behavior as early as the second year of life.
Restatement
In order to restate from a humanist
perspective Unificationism’s corruption myth on the foundation of its creation
myths, I first note that the effectiveness of such a myth lies in its offer of
guidance for the lives of the people. This is possible because the components
of the myth symbolically refer to features of the natural order. The task here,
then, is to demythologize the unnatural components of these tales as finally
written in Genesis 3 and, to find secular references for God, and
for the archangel and interactions among God, the archangel, and the
two humans.
It is easier to unmask the
Archangel Angels know laws and principles of created
reality. They pass on this knowledge to other existing entities, thus
supporting the maintenance of the entities. As maintainer, the Archangel is
supporting the interests of the self. (in Unificationism, for each feature of
created reality, there is a feature within each human being that relates to it
[1.6.2.]; thus the feature relating to angels, could be self-interest.)
It would be more difficult to restate relationship with other
angels, unmasking its meaning….. Perhaps a hierarchy of self-interests.
In Judaism’s corruption myth, a penalty for
the woman’s refusal to take any responsibility for having been seduced is that
her “desire will be for the -man” (Gen 3:16b) This desire becomes
addictive.
God,
for reasons given above, does not appear in this first stage of
Unificationism’s interpretation of Judaism’s corruption myth. God appears in Unificationism’s
recounting of Genesis 3:16b, in which, after the children refuse to take
responsibility for their actions, God first pronounces penalty
consequences, and then gives them clothing. This is the first step in God’s
guiding and helping human beings to regain freedom and recover and gain
intimacy with Him.
[1.5.2.2] In Unification theology,
God does not directly govern immature human beings. God endowed each human with
the irrepressible desire to give love to the greatest scope imagined. God then
governs human beings through the force inherent in the Creation Principle. That
when a human being, guided by the force, has given love and had the love
received, becomes ready to give love to a greater scope, is attributed to God’s
giving him or her more truth and love [1.6.3.2]. However, internal truth and
external truth are properties of a human being, and the impulse of giving true
love is ready to manifest itself in a person’s emotions given the reception of
beauty and the recognition of a new level of opportunity. Accordingly, having
stated the impulse at the start of this text, I will restate the myths
substituting simply the principled force in place of God, calling it, as I have
above, innate intelligence.
The
origin of painful reality.
It is not unreasonable
to think that the ancestors of all human beings living even before the arrival
of civilization (other ancestral lines having died out) were twins, (in
Unificationism, they were the boy Adam and the girl Eve ( [1.1.1] having
evolved from a previous species in an opportune environment Garden
of Eden[1.1.1]. (In Unificationism, they were just created by God [1.1.1]. During
childhood the boy and girl separated from the maternal species and formed a
project whose goal was the full maturation of each [1.1.1.1]. They exchanged
love and beauty, helped each other, and exercised their creativity in exploring
the environment. As they physically matured, they were able to give love to
each other at increasing depths, and so were growing spiritually/emotionally as
well [1.6.1.2]. The girl, intuitively preparing for motherhood, was more
protective of foundations they had developed. The boy, intuitively
preparing for developing the foundations, was more adventuresome.
On a fateful day in their adolescence, the
girl, alone, thought of an activity that seemed as if it would be pleasurable.
(In Unificationism, the thought is suggested by the Archangel Lucifer [1.2.2.1]).
[1.2.2.1] She considered it positively and soon began engaging in it. Soon her
innate intelligence, manifesting in her conscience, impelled her to pause and
examine it in relation to the project, the interest of the whole. There were
two reasons for this: according to the creation principle, it was one of the kind
of activities that were meant to be shared; it was meant to be performed when
she had -become more mature emotionally and able to imagine the thoughts and
feelings of her twin [1.1.3.3]. This caused her to reflect; however, at that
age of growth, her intellect was not sufficiently developed to be sure if this
self-interest activity was appropriate for the project. [1.2.5.3] Then,
the girl, immature in intellect and not yet
stable emotionally and already beginning to feel love for the activity,
abandoned her faith in the internal guidance and its warning, and greedily
continued in the activity. Eventually, her love for the activity overrode
the power of her innate intelligence, and she became unable to stop [1.2.5.1]
until exhausted.
[1.2.2.2]. Now alone emotionally as well as
physically, the girl felt dread. Having abandoned the project she shared with
her twin, feeling pain from her conscience and, being alone and separated from
any interest of the whole, she also felt fear.
[1.2.2.1] As the girl now had come to know
clearly, what she had only dimly sensed, the outcome of the activity,
she proposed, to the boy, sharing the activity in an attempt to
reenter their project, but what would be, in fact, a new project, in which she
would stand as the subject partner. He, seeing her in the confused state and
having abandoned their project, was weakened and, after not so much hesitation
that was prompted by his principled force and conscience, readily entered
into a reciprocal relationship and then formed a common base with her The ensuing giving and receiving action then
propelled them into sexual intercourse [1.2.2.2].
Their
new project was not the maturation of each, but the satisfaction of each
centered on each one’s selfish desire.
RESPONSIBILITY
10. in our painful reality, the
innately urged responsibility of each of us to grow to emotional and
physical maturity is difficult, if not impossible to fulfill, for the following
reasons.
10.1 In
early childhood, each of us acquires from our caretaker(s) the inclination to
overvalue the purpose of the self, and so shy from acting towards the whole
interest: this inclination exists along with the natural inclination for
altruistic behavior.
10.2 Each of us
exists as an object partner in one or more projects. We entered a project at
the invitation of the would-be subject partner, who assured us that
developmental action would also benefit us, either immediately or in due time in
accordance with the principle of dual interests. Each of us also
exists with unnatural fearfulness, also acquired from the caretaker. This is
not a natural fear appropriate to our being a human, such as the fear of a
newborn upon feeling the strength of the force of gravity and sensing distance
from a solid, nor instructed or experienced fear such as touching
something too hot. Accordingly, we experience fear when developmental action is
about to be undertaken, fear that we will be depleted without due
compensation. In the normal development of a project, this fear is
overcome by our well-grounded faith in the subject partner. However, when,
impelled by our fundamental impulse to give love more greatly, action is
contemplated to give love to another person stimulating the receiver to pass on
the love, fear is heightened. Love offered to another is an investment
entailing risk. If our offer is received, we and the receiver unite as an
expanded project more able also to benefit ourselves. However, we know that the
receiver may (for reasons that I will soon mention) refuse to, in turn, love
more greatly, so that unity will not occur and we are left with depletion of
our resources. Overcoming our fearfulness is faith in the project's plan,
ultimately in the subject partner, and belief that the subject partner
participates in projects ultimately stemming from person(s) of solid
goodness. This means that we require courage to have faith in our subject
partner, and, if the fear is too great, we are strongly tempted to act instead
for our own benefit, either to hoard resources or to aggressively seek
acquisition, in both cases fearing future insufficiency, exercising
our freedom to leave the project and embark on our own. It is because we know
our own temptability that we know that the intended receiver of our offer of
love will be tempted to refuse it and may succumb.
10.3 Further,
if our offer of love is rejected, our will to love is strengthened, but there
has been no return of beauty encouraging giving to a greater scope. Instead, of
feeling joy, we, deprived of the object of love, will feel sorrow, the intensity
depending upon the depth of our lovingness.
10.3.1 Fortunately,
running beneath a potential rejecter’s inclination to overvalue an object of
self interest and his or her fearfulness is his or her fundamental impulse to
love more greatly. Considering this should lessen our own fearfulness, and we
may gratefully appreciate it.
10.4 An
additional cause of not acting upon a desire to further the interests of the
whole is uncontrolled addiction. Common addictions include addiction to the effect
of alcoholic beverages, of narcotics, and of satisfaction of sexual desire. In
general, while any pleasurable activity may be intrinsically good, one should avoid
over- indulging in any, lest strong attachment to the expected pleasure make it
difficult to act for the purpose of the whole. We may consider
fearful attachment to a food source, to the well-being of one’s family
excluding activity for the sake of the community, of one’s community excluding
the sake of the nation, and one’s nation excluding the sake of the world also
to be forms of addiction.
10.4,1 Ritual
sacrifice is a method for harnessing addiction. Symbolically or actually, the
next object or action to which we are attached is placed where it is difficult
for us to access it. Then, when contemplating any such object or action, we
remember that we had sacrificed the next one, putting it away, and so are
extremely reluctant to indulge. The more valuable the object or activity, the
more the sacrifice is effective.
10.4.2 The
purpose of harnessing addiction is that individual-interest attachment to the
object or action is hindering action for the whole interest The sufficiently costly
sacrifice, therefore, is offered to the whole interest, the
project. While the addiction remains, it is now as if it had never
been. Thus, the obstruction which we, as the object partner with uncontrolled
addiction, had presented to our subject partner has been removed, and
our subject partner may welcome us, as the object partner with controlled
addiction, back into the project. (In Unificationism, such a process is called
in English, misguidedly, Restoration through Indemnity [2.
Intro.1.1) In Alcoholics Anonymous, the “higher power” to which
desirable alcoholic beverages are sacrificed actuaily is the interest of the
whole, namely, to get on with life.
10.4.3 Internally, if we are addicted to some thought, such
as a fantasy, or to some desire (e.g., for greater social power), putting it
aside may require attaching a painful action to it.
10.4.4 Any powerful selfish desire may become
addictive. This is notably, even universally, true of selfish sexual
desire. Sexual desire always arises from the impulse to give love to
the greatest scope imagined. We may imagine a future transformed reality with
love and happiness. We may even imagine that there is something greater,
transcending what we can imagine, beckoning us on. Then, how can sexual love
best contribute to the coming of such a reality? This would be in the
production of an heir as a step in the scenario leading to an ideal global
civilization, which is the greatest interest of the whole. Therefore, a sexual
desire not accompanied by the intention of such production is inherently
selfish and, being powerful, becomes addictive. (Unificationism holds this
addiction to have been present in all people after the human Fall [1.1.5] and
that it can be harnessed only through faith in a truly parentall couple in the
scenario, sacramentally established, and by activity in accordance with
guidance outlined by the couple [1.7.4.2.]. Additional rituals,
include vows for sexual relations centered upon the transcendent and rituals to
overcome the resentment women harbor having been historically oppressed.)
10.4.4.1 There is a two-fold reason why
appropriate, unselfish desire is so difficult to maintain. Unlike primates,
such as the chimpanzees who can become pregnant only several years apart, human
beings can become pregnant every 10 or 11 months; upon becoming pregnant and
delivering a baby, a human female must devote several years to rearing the
child, and for this she will not only optimally have the support of her mate,
but also have attained emotional maturity. Thus, there is a multi-year gap
between the age of acquiring the physiological ability to reproduce, along with
its appropriately developing hormones, and the age for optimal reproduction. To
deny for such a long period the natural urge to reproduce, which would lead to
a certain happiness, the interest of the self, requires faith in a greater
benefit in a far future, the interest of the whole. To sustain such faith
requires the utmost courage.
10.5 Suppose we give in to the
temptation just to not seek to love more greatly, fearing possible or even
probable pain, but stay in our comfort zone? To do so would be to
imprison within our mind the impulse to give true love. All our actions would
be alienated from our deepest nature. Rather, to continue seeking opportunity
to give greater love will give us a new sense of freedom.
10.5.1 Even this heroic determination,
however, would not itself establish
the internal freedom that we seek. The love
that we give must be pure.
10.5.2 For the impulse to
result in giving love, it must become an emotion for loving. The emotion,
guided by the operation of the intellect, becomes the will to act in a specific
way; then active love will occur if a person has sufficient power. All too
readily, however the impulse picks up not just the emotion of loving, but one
or more other emotions seeking expression. It may pick up the desire to hurt
someone in order to release stored up feelings of resentment and revenge; in
such a case, a kiss may be a bite in disguise. The impulse to love may pick up
the desire to be hurt as punishment for actions considered guilty. It may take
up sexual desire inappropriate to the intended object of love. It may be
affected or diverted by an irrational desire-- a desire intellectually known to
be impossible of satisfaction--, which may result from extreme dissatisfaction
or may be imbibed from a parent. To be internally free, we must forgive any who
have caused us pain and forgive ourselves. In the case of irrational desire we
will need to find a cure in a therapy.
SOCIETY
11. A project of any societal scope
(e.g., marriage, a plan to share enjoyable activity, a plan to benefit the
neighborhood) purports that – as in every project –actions for the whole
interest will result in benefits for the actor to some extent, and is an
investment, with risk.
1.1.1
The family has been the basic unit of any society. Societal relationships at
any level may be seen as family relationships writ large.
1.1.1.2.
It is in the family that one learns
loving, disrespecting, hating, and standards for behaving.
1.1.2 The expansion
of a society, even one that was not yet civilized, but definitely a civilized
society that is able to continue to thrive, has usually been dependent upon the
example of a person demonstrating the viability of a greater societal
investment, a greater sacrifice involving a new technology – often a series of
such persons. [In Unificationism, such a person is called Abel-type]. If the
example is remembered and societally practiced, and it becomes a tradition,
then, sooner or later, it is likely that a political entity based upon the
tradition will be established. The exemplary person has had greater faith; and
the greater his or her nobleness, the sooner the societal practice
will occur. (In Unificationism’s interpretation of Genesis 4, the roles of the
brothers – presumably, each with their families and living with their parents –
are seen as elder and younger, and this is a true typology in a patriarchal culture
in which the elder participates comfortably in the father’s possessions, while
the younger, with nothing to lose, is more likely to innovate. Nevertheless,
what the younger is doing in the story is to sacrifice the availability of the
animals as food before their maturity, while the elder sacrifices the
availability only of immature plants. Attachment is stronger to that which is
more
valuable.)
[ A history of such expansion may be found implicit in the
Hebrew Scriptures culminating in the story of Solomon’s kingdom, a cautionary
tale, written by persons well after the destruction of the kingdom, it shows
the perils of deviating from the tradition. Accepted history shows
attempts to revive the tradition and move forward with it. The Gospels of the
Christian tradition may be seen to trace ultimately unsuccessful attempts to
establish a political entity enshrining an example and the tradition that
ensues from it.]
ACTION FOR SOCIETY
12. To act toward the
development of a society, or toward a reformation/transformation
of a society, we may either be the innovative person or seek and find and
assist one.
13. Societies, however, have needed not
only development but also purification, which should, or perhaps must, precede
the development. The purification that a society needs is the purging of
injustice.
13.1. One way is the sequence of confession, forgiving,
loving, and uniting.
13.1.1. An effective way of eliciting confession is
establishment of a Truth Commission. Evidence
of invasion or the institution and maintenance of systemic oppression is
presented. Agreement of the commission’s conclusions by those who created the
injustice, or by their heirs, constitutions their confession.
13.1.2.
Another way of confessing is the direct proclamation by the individuals,
class, or caste currently sustaining the injustice.
13.1 3.
Reception of confession may stimulate
forgiving by those suffering from injustice. If they then feel and demonstrate
love for the oppressors, all can unite in the task of eliminating the
injustice.
13.2. Any person can forgive another who hurt him or
her, and this cleanses their feelings of hurt and resentment, and also works
towards harmony. However, simple forgiveness is not benevolent: the offender is
left with feelings of guilt. Towards the removal of these, actions by the
offender to repair historic and current pain are called for. Yet, historic and
current pain will likely be too great to be fully repaired by the offender’s
actions. If this is the case, what may move the heart of the offended is for
the offender to offer reparations to the point of barely tolerable cost. This
may also be accepted by the offender’s conscience. Then, a fully harmonious
relationship between the two can be established. (In Unificationism, this
process is called establishing conditions toward indemnification [2.1].
14. Forgiveness with recognition of
painful reparations may establish emotional harmony – reconciliation if the
parties had been in harmony before the offence –; however, the social
situation may be one in which the offender can continue to impose upon the
offended. Therefore, the offending person or class--acting towards the purpose
of the whole, the full cooperation in a project for the facilitation of greater
loving, should set reparations and/or other means towards the offended’s full
external freedom and for equality, for only then can the internal freedom of
each – the freedom to give pure love in the realistic expectation that it will
be received – be attained [1.2.5.1]. Only then will there be peace, substantial
harmony, and full happiness. (In Unificationism, the first offenders were
Adam and Eve, and the offended, God, who requested, for the sake of the
offenders, painfully costly reparations to expunge their guilty feelings.)
PART
No comments:
Post a Comment