The intellect is not without its own inner critic. Native to our understanding is a capacity for self-reflection which in turn transforms into self-critique and self-refinement. Reasonable reasons have to be thought through repeatedly. Following the translation of Emmanuel Levinas of Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah (50:36)  “A sword for loners, they lose their wits….” we can surmise that the isolation of ideas (ideas which no longer speak to one another) is definitely not good. The lone idea escapes its isolation via the sword which, counter to those who might think it an instrument of death in the aforementioned verse, actually comes to challenge this solitary idea to an intellectual fencing match. The sword play or jousting of two ideas sharpens them. Without such contests our ideas tend to be dull. The competitive spirit whips them into shape.

This explains why k’negdo or oppositional relationships fall within the world of Formation. The tensions therein boost our mental acuity. Ideas become much further developed when we care about them. The world of Formation is primarily the seat of the emotive spheres within the soul but when we reframe all of the worlds in terms of relationships between ideas, then this world would represent the emotional investiture in what one thinks. Opinions matter. My ideas stir my passions. Here, I can no longer be cold and calculating as the exchange of ideas heats up. When two ideas collide with enough force they may even fuse together releasing an exceptional amount of propellent for my mind and simultaneously they are emotionally consequential.

Whenever we are entertaining an idea, it tends to solicit other ideas like moths to a flame. These other ideas may prove to be supportive (as we discussed in the previous article) or they might end up presenting a challenge to the idea in question. Lest we fear oppositional ideas, they truly are crucial to coming to any real understanding. In the ‘house chambers’ of our minds, one idea would naturally love to run unopposed. At times we might even suppress alternative ideas, so that our candidate can sail into office without all of the energy sapping and expenditures of a protracted campaign. Yet, this kind of election rigging usually gets exposed for what it is. The ruling idea will eventually be rejected for defrauding the mind and failing to generate the backing of all the other ideas in the congress of our thoughts. In the end, a well vetted and constitutionally elected idea will receive greater executive powers and be able to hold sway over the rest of our consciousness, legislating the guidelines of our psychological behavior.

Most of the time, we are suspicious of an idea which gets in too easily and our inner voice of reason chimes in and poses the following in the court of appeals within our cognitive conscience: ‘Did I (unreflectively) take the first idea I had and run with it?’ Irrational exuberance can lead to being swept away as we are seduced by an idea that prematurely silences all alternatives. If we think of this in the interpersonal realm, then it would be comparable to a husband who fails to listen to his wife or an employer who does not want to hear anything other than praise and agreement. The proof of greatness in the realm of ideas does not stem from their casting forth fear and intimidation (‘I will yell at you if you disagree with me’ or ‘I will fire you for insubordination’) but rather from their capacity to hear out all sides. One idea should not see other ideas as threats but as sparring partners in the spirit of healthy competition. Our marriage of ideas ultimately comes when they play off one another.

Moreover, the deepest perspectives dispense with ‘sides’ all together (it’s not about winning a battle but about rising to the challenge and responding with the best that I have to offer) and therefore opts to embrace conflicting ideas without feeling the need to resolve the tension. In other words, a tension filled marriage–a war of ideas–still puts those ideas in relationship to one another, which will refine them far beyond what they could hope to achieve as single, unrelated ideas. Advancements in my understanding often occur when I am engaged in both internal and external dialectics. Dialectical reason progresses with the assertion of a thesis which is then immediately countered with its antithesis only to have elements of both uplifted and combined into a new synthesis. Any synthesis of ideas which were once opposing, counts as a marriage of ideas.

Our appreciation for the new synthesis may retroactively shed light on the necessity of the original oppositional structure. Were you not to have challenged me I would have never dug deeper within myself to come up with an acceptable response or else I would have never been able to see the world from another perspective. An idea acquires merit from overcoming obstacles that were thrown in its path. Hearing the other’s objections is not a sign of weakness but strength. In fact, it is in face of ‘objections’ of the other that the idea assumes its ‘objectivity.’ The telltale sign of faulty reason, poor conclusions and an unconvincing position, is the avoidance of contact with oppositional positions. On the flip side, the hallmark of intellectual rigor has always been to subject any thesis to intensive and extensive third party trials.

From our analysis of relationships between ideas, it is now possible to reconfigure our set of three possible connections with the other (selfless dedication, mutual support, and competitive opposition). It all depends on where in the control centers of the soul each one of these relationship types shows itself. The context proves pivotal.

If we are talking about the day to day operations and behaviors of one person to another (it could equally be said of one idea to another), then having that constant dedication is of paramount importance. On a practical level (which is called mutba or the ‘operative-behavioral’ dimension in Kabbalah), I need to know that no matter what, you will be there for me. The nature of one person or idea is to be there for and given over to another person or idea. We might call this an essential givenness. We always want to act towards one another with selfless dedication. Thus, our positive gut instinct and better nature should automatically kick in for the good of the other.

When we are addressing the emotive sphere (murgash denotes the emotional level in Kabbalah) then the relationship should ideally be one of mutual support. We emotionally  assist each other. Emotional dynamites ebb and flow and cycle about. Our feelings are aroused. They are not innately unconditional. So the question becomes one of seeking out the correct catalyst for this arousal. We both would like each other’s emotional support but how do we get it? I have a hard time displaying affection when you are being cold and vice versa. Whereas, relationships of selfless dedication have me given over to you, (there is no ethical-spiritual action that I would not perform for you even if you did nothing for me in return) emotion really entails a mirroring effect. I absorb your feelings for me and you absorb my feelings for you.

Finally, the best application of oppositional tendencies within a relationship, when sparring is positive and constructive rather than detrimental to our overall marital heath, is on the intellectual front (muskal meaning ‘intellect’ would be the kabbalistic term here). I am looking to marry someone who is my intellectual equal. However, this does not mean that this person think in the same way as me or even have the same kind of intelligence. The best would be when my significant other thinks in a totally different way or at least in parallel to me in order to run counterpoint to any point that I might make. Spouses can provide an intellectual challenge for each other as long as it is in the spirit of healthy competition and not actual warfare. I should want to know what you think knowing that it will immeasurably improve what I think. The other acts as my sounding board and editor of ideas. My proposals ideally should be ‘groomed’ and trimmed if they are going to go anywhere.

In our next installment (Part Nineteen) we will probe the relationship of a pair of Divine names or the marriage of two different aspects of Divinity.

http://www.interinclusion.org/inspirations/relationship-differences-fusion-and-defusion-part-19/

http://www.interinclusion.org/inspirations/relationship-differences-fusion-and-defusion-part-17/

Print PDF