BlackBird wrote:There's no real world application here, it's just a thought exercise to generate a bit of conversation.
I'd say that such a thought exercise can be valuable, in that it may be a way for us to cultivate greater sensitivity towards the limits of our capacity to know, greater hospitality to the 'outside' of thought.
And I would say that it is pertinent to the real world - not in the sense that it has any immediate calculable application, but in the more general sense of how it touches on a some aspects of our day-to-day relations that cannot be easily compartmentalised or contained with 'objective' knowledge.
There's a distinctive element that characterises the initial scenario and all the responses that have been posted: the element of the unkown or unknowningness.
The scenario turns on the unknowingness of whether the group would survive or not if they had stayed together, whether the person who decides to go with his/her friend would be betraying the trust of the group or honouring one's friendship, etc. It could go both ways - the outcome remains unknown, or at any rate, unknowable in advance.
Regardless of the reasons one gives and the decision one makes, the element of unknowingness is not eliminated as such - it remains, despite our rationalisation and calculation. To be sure, the reasons we come up with may be sound reasons, but when the decision is made to act a certain way, the unknowingness of what one's decision would lead to remains an open question. Our knowledge of the situation up till that point, our knowledge of why we choose to act a certain way, only takes us that far - at the point where the decision is made, our capacity to objectively know reaches its limit, thought stands exposed to its outside.
What is it, then, that carries forth our decision? Could it be this thing called faith? Or if you prefer, trust, anticipatory confidence, fidelity - in any case, what is generally expressed by the notions of 'doing something in good faith', or saying 'Yours Faithfully'. What makes such scenarios difficult is because of our bonds of relationality to those involved: a good friend, a family member, loved ones, those to whom we have made a promise
. The promise could be explicit such as when the person agrees to be part of the group; but the promise need not be articulated for it to be a promise, such as when we feel an unspoken responsibility those dear to us. In any case, aren't we making promises all the time when we say to our family, friends, and loved ones: "I love you', 'I'll see you around', 'I do'. When we say these things, we are effectively saying without articulating it: 'trust me, I will honour fidelity to our relationship.'
The relation between faith-as-trust-anticipatory-confidence-fidelity and knowledge is a reciprocal one
. We reflect on the reasons why we ought to act a certain way, then we make the decision. But from that point it is no longer the duty of knowledge but the duty of faith-as-trust-anticipatory-confidence-fidelity to hold us true to our decision - which, btw, could very well generate consequences against our wishes. Things could always go pear shape. There is no guarantee that our decision would not meet its own ruin, that our faith-as-trust-anticipatory-confidence-fidelity would not be violated by its own chance. Our decision must expose itself to chance for it to be a decision in the first place.
So there is a certain double bind here. But I'd say that it is precisely because of this double bind - the lack of guarantee that our decision would not become that which burdens us - it is because of this im-possibility of guarantee, of objectively knowing in advance - that we have the ongoing movement of responsibility. Why exert constant effort to reflect on our decisions, to readjust them, to retake them, over and over again, if the decision is not exposed to what is beyond its capacity to know or settle once and for all? I believe the general thrust of what I'm suggesting is expressed by this passage in Tilt's signature:
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.