Intellectual Caesarism

Intellectual Caesarism What I am asserting is that everyone thinks himself essen tially good, and capable of the high performances which interdependence requires in accordance with the principles of love. Why, then, don't we be done with violence? Pri marily, the reason is because of an all-too-common inhibit ing fallacy, a myth we have conjured up in our minds: "Noone else is quite as good and dependable, if left to his own resources, as I am." This is a form of intellectual Caesarism. In effect, the persons who hold this opinion aver that the world would be a better place in which to 26 live if only others were cast in their image - a rather brazen indictment of God. Reason will not support the idea of the principle of love as impractical. Experience, although abundantly support ing its practicality, is difficult to discern. We practice the principle of love in most of the aspects of our daily lives without recognizing it as such. If we did not practice this principle in large measure, we would perish.* But where violence once takes the place of love, most of us seem to consider the matter settled, and conclude that love has forever been ruled out as possible of application. Many examples of this forgetting process could be cited, but perhaps our new "internationalism" will suffice. Here is an instance where our "aid" to foreign countries is in no sense a voluntary act, but an act based on the principle of violence. Consider what would happen were you not to pay the Marshall Plan part of your tax bill! That this is violence, however, is not my point. The point is the extent to which aid on a voluntary basis has been all but forgotten as a possibility. Violence has so far superseded love in actual application that people are referring to this *The statement that we practice the principle of love in large measure, signifying that the principle of violence is practiced only in small measure, and the argument that violence is the source of our ills, may appear as a contradiction. It is not. Imagine 100 people at a church social. Reflect on the total energy expended in walking, talking, ges ticulating, conducting the meeting, preparing the meal, and so on.

Then, consider the effect of an infinitesimal part, maybe only :tAo,oob, of this energy turned to violence, say a punch on the nose of a deacon by the parson. Violence, like a deadly poison, has an effect dispropor tionate to its quantity. 27 act of violence as charity! It is as if they insisted on doing good even though they had to kill someone in the process! With Eyes to See I repeat, it is not necessary to weigh the merits of violence and love. Where violence is taking us is apparent to every one with eyes to see and with minds to understand. The practice of love is suspected to be the alternative, but there is too little in the way of firm convictions to support the fact that it is the alternative. Even many of the clergy preach violence while Christian banners and symbols decorate their pulpits. No one, however, except an avowed authoritarian, will deny the fact that this would be a better world if a trend away from violence could be begun and a trend toward love initiated.