There is a moment that follows recognition.
Not the moment of intellectual clarity — that often feels sharp, even exhilarating — but the moment after.
The moment when one realises that what appears as disagreement is not confusion, not oversight, not misunderstanding — but commitment.
A commitment to anchors one no longer shares.
And that recognition carries two simultaneous affects:
Relief: The End of Puzzlement
Relief comes first.
What once felt baffling — repeated appeals to transcendence, insistence on systemic guarantees, recoil at immanence — suddenly becomes intelligible.
One no longer wonders, Why don’t they see this?
They do see it.
They refuse its consequences.
And that refusal is coherent within their orientation.
Relief arises when confusion dissolves.
The Recognition of Incompatibility
But clarity also reveals something harder.
Some commitments are not merely theoretical positions. They are existential safeguards.
If someone relies on transcendence to secure moral seriousness, then a fully immanent ontology may feel morally dangerous.
If someone relies on system as validator, then distributing grounding relationally may feel destabilising.
One can now see why recoil occurs.
And seeing it means accepting that persuasion may not be possible — not because arguments are weak, but because the stakes are ontological.
Sadness Without Superiority
The sadness here is not condescension.
It is not the belief that others are naïve.
It is the recognition that admirable moral seriousness can be tethered to structures that also constrain.
One may see suffering in the maintenance of anchors — the strain of defence, the urgency of protection, the anxiety of potential collapse.
And one may also see that those anchors enable courage, commitment, and ethical action.
To recognise both is to experience complexity without simplification.
That complexity can feel heavy.
The Limits of Invitation
Juxtaposition can invite insight.
Relational critique can expose tension.
But no method guarantees that someone will relinquish what secures them.
This is not failure. It is structural.
When ontological orientation differs, invitation does not necessarily produce movement.
Understanding this can be sobering.
It means accepting that clarity does not entail convergence.
Compassion Without Conversion
Here, the earlier ease with solitude deepens.
One can remain steady in one’s orientation while recognising that others cannot follow — not because they lack intelligence, but because the cost would be too high.
Compassion becomes possible without condescension.
Engagement continues without expectation of transformation.
One stops trying to rescue others from their anchors.
One stops trying to prove groundlessness as virtue.
There is space.
Living With Asymmetry
Ontological asymmetry can be lived with.
One can:
-
Understand the function of anchors without adopting them.
-
Respect moral seriousness without sharing its guarantees.
-
Continue dialogue without hidden missionary impulse.
But asymmetry remains asymmetry.
That is where the sadness lingers.
It is the sadness of recognising that some distances are not bridged by better argument.
The Quiet Integration
Over time, relief and sadness integrate.
What remains is a calm awareness:
Different orientations secure moral life differently.
One need not eradicate the difference.
One can live alongside it.
Conclusion
Ontological clarity does not produce triumph. It produces steadiness — and sometimes sorrow.
But within that mixture lies maturity.
And to continue speaking anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment