revolution 6

Second to last post for a while on the subject of a collective action/protest in December 2014.


The notion of a strike as an opening of the hand to give or to receive, not a withholding. Also not a gift – not a making of/assertion of art. The opening of the hand as the action. The giving or taking follows from the silence of it.


Are we living pretty good lives in worlds that we’ve structured pretty well? Is that how we’ll die? [Correcting a typo in yesterday’s post – “I guess the key question – we’re absorbed by the science of change (art and perception) – are we engaged with the right revolution? The revolution for which we are dying?”]


Is it a choice to live a little wretchedly on behalf the ideal?


Possible to live in real peace on behalf of the ideal?


Where are the bars to peace at either end of the deal?


To the extent that they are in our self definitions, how can faith give us the courage to leap out of our restrictions, and how can hope admit to an ideal whose ideal nature includes an appropriateness to our lives? (My hope does not admit of being an NBA star… that’s only a wish; the ideal that matches the purpose for which I was made seems to draw me towards things I don’t always even enjoy… Joy is not necessarily the defining quality of my ideal, maybe peace is, complex and relentless reproachful as it may be.)


Aware of the infinite precision by which we may be matched to our highest purpose, are we well open to faith and hope in our customs of practice, namely, the habits of our daily revolution? Again, what is our right revolution? Or what is a right revolution in the mix of our company, which is not yet being undertaken, and which is necessary to our collective hope?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *