I have found the hard way that debates are painful and counter-productive.
One might think ‘well, if you don’t tolerate arguments, then you are a fascist, or you abide to some sort of fascism’. But I don’t see it like that anymore. You see it isn’t ‘black or white’, ‘this or that’. The possibilities are endless. But we have been taught that in democracy we are free, and if we didn’t ave it we wouldn’t be free and that in old times people were always un-free and so on… Well, in (some) older times people also fell in love. ‘Older times’ isn’t just WW2 or the Spanish Inquisition.
Aside from the debates people engage into against each other, there are also the debates one can have with himself. He think he wants to go shopping, then he thinks of all the reasons he shouldn’t, then he thinks he should and then… This can go on forever. And one of the basic things people involved with spirituality do is to get that out of the way, for it makes them feel chaotic and bad and the result is too much thinking and less (or even no) achieving.
So, I have decided to simply match with what I match with, and not match with what I don’t –how obvious! If I’d like to go shopping, then I will, and if not then I wont. I’m not going to ask the neighbor whether I should. I might ask him where the shop is or whether he’d like me to fetch something for him while I go there. And although I might discuss the shop and the things I shopped with others (or not) if another doesn’t want to go shopping or wants to go to another shop, I wont try to convince him otherwise, and I wont tell him his shop sucks, and I’m not going to gossip the shopkeeper, either. And if I don’t like the shop I went to, I wont be going there anymore. And if somebody thinks I’m a ‘shoppist’ for I go shopping, I might as well point out he shouldn’t go shopping himself. What should it have to do with me?
Yes, I like to discuss things, exchange perspectives. But I don’t like it when it gets pushy –one trying to force what he thinks is good, real, true onto another. It doesn’t work. One needs to know by and for himself to really know, and one needs to know what he himself really likes too, and trust in that.
That’s basic allowing and respecting each other’s perspective, will, freedom, the way I see it.
Sovereignty is a sort of a monarchy, indeed. But it’s monarchy over oneself –that’s the difference between this and fascism. And who else should be entitled to have authority on me, if I was to call myself free? And how could I allow the same for others unless I allowed them to do the same for themselves too?
For me it would be like paradise if we could make and divide societies based on common likes, dislikes, wants, not wants, instead of forcefully trying to make all one. Do you know what we would have then? Peace. For one wouldn’t try to impose himself onto the other, and one would enjoy the other’s company too. Obviously, not all like and want the same. So why force it? Is that freedom? Are those customers that come to my work and hate it free? Why do they come if they hate it/why don’t they go where they’d like to? I know I don’t like to have them if they don’t like to come; their will is my own too. And so I don’t like to try to change their minds either. I don’t like to play nice if they aren’t.
That’s debates, democracy, ‘dialectic materialism’, collision and combination of opposites.