The great philosophical divide: “realism” vs. “idealism”
The great philosophical divide is between those who do (“idealists”) and those who don’t (“realists”) want to replace the unreality of replication / disconnection-separation:
- illogic-insanity / self-delusion
- lawlessness-chaos / opposites-contradictions / competition-disunity
- captivity / conformance / oppression
- isolated bodies-matter
- appearances-deceptions
- misunderstanding / projection-blame / guilt-fear / victimhood
- punishment-retribution / conflict-violence / destruction
- uncreativity / ignorance / stagnation
- invalidation-disempowerment / worthlessness
- non-being / mortality
with the Reality of Oneness / Relationship-Interconnection:
- Logic-sanity / Self-Awareness / Knowledge
- Governance-Order / Harmony / Sharing-Community
- Freedom / Free Will / Expression
- Interconnected Minds-Selves
- Reality-Truth / Honesty-Integrity
- Understanding / Love / Innocence / Psyche-Soul Harmlessness
- Creation / Learning / Growth / Progress-Development
- Affirmation-Empowerment / Worth
- Being / Life-Eternity
In the philosophical divide “idealists” committed to the Reality of Oneness consider themselves the true “Realists.” To “idealists” “realists” are the true self-deluded “unrealists.” To “realists” it is the reverse.
This author’s perspective belongs with historic idealists who consider themselves true realists. The Story of the Child is therefore written from the perspective of one Child-mind convinced by Logic of its Reality. If it earns-deserves “authority” it is not by virtue of the qualifications of its author or the subjectivity or objectivity of his perspective. It is by virtue solely of its internal Logic.
Alignment with A Course in Miracles
It does not seek identification with any philosophical or religious thought. But it does claim inspiration from the Logic of Jesus in A Course in Miracles. Any contradiction in the Logic of The Story of the Child with ACIM is to be resolved in favor of ACIM.
The Story of the Child is not intended to be in any sense an alteration of, or improvement on, ACIM. Though it shares its basic purpose with ACIM – explanation to help with Understanding-Forgiveness and thus with awakening – it does not share the same scope. The Story of the Child is a conscious attempt to extend the scope of ACIM’s Logic back in the Sequence of Logic from an act by a mind unconscious that produced the dream of unreality to the event that explains the mind’s loss of consciousness.
It hopes thereby to provide a foundation for Understanding context that will support logical interpretations of what happened and why. So that attempts to explain, Understand, and correct human behavior driven by this event and its consequences will cease conflicting with Logic. Will cease perpetuating error and putting off the unhappy Child’s awakening from its nightmare. So that future attempts will succeed because they align with Logic.
Is this relevant? Is it “practical?”
Tell me that our world isn’t spiraling into another cycle of authoritarian horrors, lawlessness, delusion, and destruction. Tell me that the “optimism” of “realists” is warranted against all the evidence that the unreasoning, insensitive, self-absorbed children that we are refuse to grow up. That our world is tending toward freedom and compassion instead of more oppression and cruelty.
Tell me that the “optimism” of “realists” deserves center stage instead of the countless victims of self-delusion who don’t share their “optimism.” Who know better. Whose voice will be heard when the “optimism” of “realists” makes certain that there are no voices left. To what is the “optimism” of “realists” attributable? To happenstance: to the fact that their misguided “realism” – their self-delusion -- hasn’t, so far, made them victims.
Tell me that our fields of inquiry – science, philosophy, psychology, theology – have good explanations that all add up to Understanding. So that the voice of self-delusion that’s got the field to itself won’t turn this century into a worse horror show than the last. Or have we forgotten? Two world wars, the Great Depression, the cold war and its threat of nuclear annihilation. More pandemics and the greatest horror of them all: Anthropocene. Mass extinction dismissed as “climate change” in the popular imagination so that infantile, self-absorbed children, who refuse to grow up, won’t be inconvenienced.
What The Story of the Child will show
If the “explanations” offered by the dominant paradigms of our fields of inquiry brought us to this, are they “relevant?” Are they “practical?” What The Story of the Child will show is that they are neither. Their “realism” is dead wrong, and they have brought us to this. They are accountable. They are the issue, not the Logic of another perspective. If they can’t explain the reality behind appearances then let them explain why their veneration of appearances has failed.
I would meet you upon this honestly.