Viewpoints – On Forms of Address(22-03-2008)
There is, after all, something quite sound and healthy in the basic scientific approach, as long as the motive that dictates the enquiry is genuine: first, by trial and error, one learns what works and what doesn’t; then, through attentive observation, one learns how it works and how it doesn’t.
And thus, one gains the knowledge of processes and of their applications in response to specific necessities.
Auroville being itself a laboratory, our first necessity is to obtain the freedom to continue to experiment and to gradually achieve a certain transformative critical mass.
For this freedom to be obtained, we require the continued approval of the larger existing society within which we operate.
By now, in this regard, we have recorded a fairly detailed picture of what works and what doesn’t, and of how it works and doesn’t.
Yet we appear reluctant to, as numerous voices exhort, ‘put our act together’…
Perhaps this is due to a mistaken identification on our part: our self-importance gets in the way!
While science as a discipline demands detachment, we tend to believe in the roles we must play.
But this only blurs our perspective and delays the clarity of understanding, which ought to be straightforward: whenever we approach and meet equally every rung of the larger existing social structure with a spirit that includes probity, integrity, transparency, a flame for progress, fraternity and respect, it works. Whenever, instead, we display manipulation, or diffidence, lack of regard and vindictive challenge, it doesn’t.
It is also evident that the larger societal frame expects intelligible and reliable references: what harm can come from providing those, and even being proactive about it?
Harm only comes if and when, in the provision, the communicators seek more recognition than for a garden well-tended, a plank well-planed, an account well-made, a table well-laid…
Can there be a better protection for our freedom – and duty – to experiment than respect and appreciation?