For reasons that I am still contemplating, I have spent most of my life treading a middle road between individuals engaged in states of conflict; and believe me, I've been in the middle of quite a number of heated and passionate exchanges. When it comes to the interaction between parties whose states of mind appear to be in opposition, I have, as an outside observer, come to learn a simple truth: There are two sides to every coin, and if one truly wishes to 'think for oneself', then it becomes necessary to fully engage BOTH parties, to weigh evenly their respective points of view, and to use one's own intuition in engaging original thought when forming an opinion on the matter, and thus not being pulled to one side or the other. I have come to see this type of 'pathfinding' as equivalent to walking in a state of grey: It is not light nor is it dark. It is not one side nor the other. It incorporates elements of both, in an attempt to find a common ground between the two (a difficult task for human beings). It may not be quite the same 'grey' that is defined in books of magic, but it appears to share similarities in that it is an attempt to add some type of influence to affect the actions of others (for the betterment of all involved, I would hope). I myself take a stance similar to that of Gerina Dunwich, a self-proclaimed 'Gray Witch', who in her book 'Herbal Magick' tells us that, "I try to work my spells for the good of others and I seek to harm none."
As part of this process, the phenomenon of intuition appears to play a central role in forming one's own thoughts on the matter, and thus in choosing one's own road. Coming to this understanding has reinforced my opinion that intuition, at least in the way that I have experienced it over the course of my lifetime is, in its final stage (the 'ah-ha' moment), a THOUGHT (intuitive) function rather than a FEELING (instinctual) function. For human beings, feeling and emotion certainly seem to lead up to its development, but its fullest expression is manifested in the realm of thought. It makes sense that it would follow this particular pattern of development, as intellectual thought, belonging to Sector 3 spirit, is a 'higher'/more complex mode of functioning than is feeling/instinct. In other words, intuition by its very nature requires one to make use of one's noggin
This particular evening has left no doubt that the phenomenon that I am experiencing is in fact intuition, as I know this feeling when it comes (and it's been quite awhile since it's manifested itself in so profound a way as it is now). It is always accompanied by a sense of calm and self-assurance, as if there is no doubt that the point of view that I am taking is the right one, for me. Contemplating nearly 40 years of interaction amongst human beings, I have come to see that there appear to be two diametrically opposed ways of treating relationships: One is the road of compassion, the other of conscious manipulation, and I believe that it is the intent behind one's actions that shifts it to one side or the other. To my mind, grey is walking the middle road between the perceived dichotomies, instead choosing to view them as reciprocals. The chasm appears to widen as very real human emotion and current patterns of human thought interpenetrate the situation. However, he/she who walks in the grey has the ability to see value in BOTH points of view; and believe me, the differing opinions being thrown at you (as the parties in opposition shout across the widening divide) can become quite convoluted, as each argues fervently in favor of one's own point of view of the perceived true nature of the situation. The one who is grey can see the spaces in between the differing points of view, and can sit and listen equally to both sides, without taking one or the other simply because 'one must choose.' This may sound like the role assumed by a mediator, and in some ways it is, as such a skill set is badly needed in our world today; a world of disintegrating relationships brought about by stubborn egos, the playing of games ('he said, she said'), and a failure to take responsibility for one's own actions; or at least, a failure to attempt to view them in a different light, i.e. the ability belonging to one who walks in the grey, not fully consumed by one opinion or the other, but contemplating both equally, and carefully weighing each against the other.
This pattern of interaction is a very human tendency that I have seen repeated many times throughout the course of my life. It is the single greatest challenge that I foresee in terms of the manifestation of a community of the nature of Sanctuary. There is opportunity there, to be certain, but our current stage of evolutionary growth makes it very difficult for us to engage in such behavior without the often times inevitable (and very human) feelings of frustration and anger leading us to forming sudden and life-altering opinions of another (sometimes warranted, mind you, but with the knowledge that there will be ripples, i.e. 'change'). The most common 'feeling' that I have seen associated with this process is that of bitterness. This leads to one failing to see the value in the words and opinions of the other, and vice versa. One can say that one does not necessarily agree with the ideas of another, but all too often, this leads to us not truly thinking all that much of the other. When respect is lost, trust is not far behind.
The desire for personal power (intellectual, emotional, spiritual) seems quite often to lead to a schism (and in this context, I am not putting a negative spin on the concept of power, as it can be employed in variety of different ways.) It is, I believe, what I speak of when I attempt to wrap my mind around the concept of 'subjective truth'. This mode of thought has all too often led folks to seeing their way as something more akin to the 'truth of the matter', and as a result, this leads to the failure to perceive the value in another's mode of thought. It is a slippery slope. We may say that we are respecting the opinions of others, but is this truly the nature of the situation? Is it just a lie that we tell ourselves to make it seem as though we are accepting of myriad points of view, when ultimately, we consider our way the right way? I believe that none are truly immune to it.
Now don't get me wrong: So-called 'objective' reality (an agreed-upon consensus) also presents with its own pitfalls, for people nowadays are far too quick to accept 'consensus' as some type of objective truth, without fully and independently examining the reality in question with a careful analytical eye, and thus finding the blatantly obvious chinks in the armor, and pointing these out (as Bard the Guardsman did with Smog). Such an action as this often leads to disassociation from one's peers; and unfortunately, most today are simply not equipped to stand alone in such a fashion. Doing so would mean facing the dragon, alone.
I believe that compassion and manipulation stand as opposite extremes in this regard - true dichotomies, as opposed to reciprocals. Practicing compassion requires a certain amount of emotional investment that can, over time, take its toll on the practitioner (for good or ill), while engaging in conscious manipulation appears to be the use of a certain type of power process to override a subject's free will to achieve a desired result. Both appear to be actions taken as a means of further developing the self, but when it comes to the effects seen in the recipient, results can differ based upon the intent of the practitioner. In the case of the latter of these two modes of interaction, and from the point of view of the manipulator, I can see how one might view this as being for the betterment of the subject in question, but this is a very slippery slope upon which to tread. Is it truly teaching a man how to fish, or simply hooking him by the mouth, without him being consciously aware of the sharp piece of metal stuck in his 'psychic cheek'? My own father used this method quite often. A high level of intellect combined with a constant quick stream of retorts led to the uttering of the phrase, "It was for your own good. You didn't turn out to too bad, did you?" No, I didn't, but it took a great deal of personal struggle to overcome the emotional turmoil caused by the manipulation (a form of growth, I will acknowledge), yet perhaps the process of growth itself would have run far more smoothly and less traumatically, with far less physic scar tissue, had the choice been made to 'guide' rather than to manipulate. There is a world of difference. And it is not regret that I am preaching here, merely observation, and a desire to 'do better' than the previous generation; which, ultimately, should be the goal of a species that seeks to evolve, should it not? Should we be mending existing wounds, or creating new ones?
In my humble opinion, speaking plain truth would be the desired mode of operation; though I do realize the weight of such words, particularly for a species such as humanity, which uses massive amounts of repression as a tool for survival. In the words of Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, "You can't handle the truth!" Most, I suspect, could not. It makes me wonder how a purely telepathic species would operate, i.e. it seems that there would be no secrets, no hidden agendas. Does this not serve as a basis for a social memory complex? And would we as humans not at this point in our development refer to this quite simply as telling the truth?
Again, you can agree, disagree, call me completely wrong, find flaws in the mode of thinking. This, as I understand it, is the reason why we're all here - to share our unique ideas, to put these out there into the world, and to see what manifests as a result. Perhaps one who is grey stands between a candle and a star, but have we as humans, as a younger race, yet matured to the point at which we can fully walk the path of the Minbari?
