“Lying in the midst of a conflict resides a dangerous flaw; what drives the contest itself represent a divided-interest adverse to a unifying force.”
Polarity is an interesting word in itself identify a presumption of divisiveness and yet I find this observation limiting and worthy of a closer look. Consider the more conventional distinction of positive and negative as merely opposites and yet, actually, that is not at all the case as one is simply the completion of the other; positive is the completion of the negative and the negative is the completion of the positive and when the process occurs as it should, balance exists.
Balance exists as well at the point where the fulcrum’s position mediates both poles to a point of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a point in common to both; it is, in point of fact, the Common Ideal and not, as some might consider the balancing of Divided Interests. The truth of the matter is that a Divided Interest actually seeks to distort the Common Ideal making the balancing intention of the Poles, about the Common Ideal, impossible.
“Balance exists at the point where the fulcrum’s position mediates both poles to a point of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a point in common to both….”
Try it for yourself; take a common butter-knife from you silver-drawer and using your index finger (as the fulcrum), representing your common ideal of establishing balance between the opposite ends of the entire butter-knife, and you will experience a visual of both forces converging upon the common ideal of balance. Then, to prove the point I intend to make, take your other index finger and attempt to establish the same balancing act without moving your primary finger and the balance offered by the Common Ideal is voided; this is the effect of Divided Interest.
We are confined by an inescapable reality that lies just below the surface of our conscious thoughts and (only) on occasion do we dare release ourselves to the command which we might, for simplicity sake, refer to as those things we hold to be true; our collective common ideal. More often we fall prey attempting to prove a false premise by simulating it as reality until ultimately the simulation collapses under the weight of its inherent weakness and then ironically enough we blame the Ideal for not proving the false premise. Examples:
- We assert a claim of Life only to establish criteria by which we restrain the width and breadth of its occurrence.
- We assert a claim of Liberty only to relinquish the range of its exhibition to the legislative process were this sacred inalienable right is selectively applied or worse, interpreted as an exclusive privilege to be metered by the hierarchy of what becomes law.
- We assert a claim of Pursuit of Happiness only to assert it as a right for those who secure their claim through the leveraging (conscription) of another’s effort.
Each of these are then consolidated through an equally odd ambiguity: we assert that we are founded on the perfecting ideal of government that we hold as a Representative Democracy all the while endorsing a descent into a politically-driven system serving the lowest possible common denominator; one which champions the process as its supreme cause and celebrates the entire routine as an uncommon success. Stranger still is the battle that wages on in the form of a public feud; the simulation teasing a confrontation as if the false-premise were actually true; the 99% vs. the 1% is a classic example. Again, we blame the Ideal for not proving the false-premise completely ignoring the fact that it is the simulation created by the divided interest, not the Ideal mind you, which is the source of the schism.
Intuitively, more and more, the American People understand the truth of what I say however yet remain unwilling to completely submit to the truth and this is largely due to our unwillingness to fully accept our part in the process playing out as it has.
What, you might ask, is the purpose of this parabolic rambling? It is really quite simple; the truth is still the truth and fiction will always remain fiction; one does not need to either prove or test the obvious; the rudimentary filter which grants one the gift of discernment is itself an affirming fixture and when functioning freely provides certainty for what you already know to be true; this feature must be native to ones core as a matter of necessity! As Thomas Jefferson said;
“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it…. Truth between candid minds can never do harm.”
There is no need to name specific issues or enumerate the seemingly ever increasing regiment of problems that surround us all the result of attempting to prove the un-provable; you will not suffer for want of options as what is common to each or any that you might name is the most common of all impositions which accompany the divided-interest of the false-premise; irreconcilability.
And so, the question remains: Will we be willing to stop the attempt to prove that which is hopelessly irreconcilable and move quickly to affecting the Ideal? Abraham Lincoln understood this reasoning quite well when considering the preeminently irreconcilable iniquities of slavery and he did so by way of a very simple yet incredibly profound statement:
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.”
The system we support has made us slaves to a master of our own making and while we busy ourselves with the belief that we are not constrained by the yoke of divisiveness the freedoms surrendered in the process have proven otherwise. Grid-lock does not exist in Government; its ability to persist as it has remains unchallenged. Quite an interesting contrast particularly when compared to the quality of life of its so-called Master.
There is no Divided-Interest where a Common Ideal prevails!
Curtis C. Greco, Founder