Monday, June 22, 2009
What is a conviction? Is it something you would die for, or over, before compromising? Is it a personal, intrinsic sense of guilt or wrong-doing, a verdict reached by a judge and jury, based on a prerequisite set of rules?
What are rules? What is a rule? Why do we call guidelines, parameters, standards or restrictions, ‘rules?’ How is that a fair reference for an objective fact?
Someone said, ‘Rules are meant to be broken.’ Who said that? Why did they say that? What injustice, mistake, or inconsistency at stake produced such a blanket statement?
Is this fallacy or truth? Is it morally or ethically right? Is this possible? Can rules be broken, bent, or are they only ignored and disobeyed? And, if not the rules, what then is broken if they are ignored or disobeyed?
Is someone who upholds the rules only called a ‘ruler’ because someone who ‘breaks’ the rules is considered ‘unruly?’
Why is a ruler either a pompous dictator or measuring stick? Why are element rulers always straight, but human rulers aren’t?
Who makes the rules? Who enforces the rules. Why are rules enforced? Who’s the real ruler, the manufacturing company who makes the ruler, the royal parent-progenitors, the legislating elected, or the voting body who of their own volition acquiesce to a particular authority?
What is the ‘exception to the rule?’ Are there exceptions? What are exceptions made for, who are they made for? What does that mean and how does it apply to you?
Is there anything absolute? Is there an Authority?
Of course there is. And if there is, which we’ve established, then there are rules. If there are rules, then they must be both upheld and played by with conviction.
You see, it’s all about the question. The heart of your question will betray the answer you're looking for. Ask yourself - are you asking the interrogative question – to argue, or are you asking the inquisitive question out of a sincere heart that truly desires to learn more?
That is the question.
Posted by e-luminations