Several weeks ago we discussed the presence
        - and the danger -
of assumptions people, such as ourselves, make
concerning the nature of the universe
        and, therefore, of life itself.
Many of these assumptions
        are inaccurate, often the result of wishful thinking and,
when given uncritical loyalty,
become the source of erroneous ideas,
        distorted judgment as well as
ultimately unhappy and even destructive lives.

We spoke of implication of the conviction
        that the universe is orderly and fair.
It is an assumption which leads to the conclusion
        that while good fortune
is the legacy of moral rectitude,
misfortune and suffering
must be retribution
        for behavior
which deserves punishment
        by sickness or financial reverse
                or children who do not fulfill our ambition.
For people who believe
        that life keeps scare
        and sees that our fate
reflects our moral worth -
the Calvinist conclusion is inescapable:
any suffering or reversal
        evidences moral failure.

Logical belief carefully constructed
        upon ungrounded and unsubstantiated assumptions.

The morning I would like to speak with you
        about another such assumption
also about the nature of life.
it, too, I think arose from the deducations
        of the Age of Enlightenment
when the rules of a reasonable universe
        were explored and articulated.
it, too, has far-reaching implications
        for our lives and relationships.
This assumption I believe
is driving much of the drama
now being played out in Washington.

The universal assumption I have in mind claims
>        that truth is always singular;
>        that principles are always pure and explicit
>        that the ways of the universe
          are always unambiguous;

>        and that values never contradict one another.
The assumption, in XVIII Century terms,
is that the Great Framer would not have permitted
                ambiguity or imperfection
in this most perfect of all worlds
where logic has no room
        for mutually exclusive propositions.

Ambiguity:  the maintaining of two or more logically incompatible beliefs or attitudes at the same time or alternately.

Placed in another perspective:
this is an assumption of a universe without contradiction.
The universe of a Master Clock maker
with the conclusion that
                ambiguity
is illusion
                and paradox
misunderstanding.
In terms of the definitions of ambiguity
it postulates a universe without mystery.

Such an assumption -
that values are without contradiction or tension -
is firmly and explicitly embodied
        in our cultural Urmyth:
                the story of the Garden of Eden.
When the universe came into being,
        so says the record,
everything within it was formed
to fit neatly:
        there was no death,
        there was no birth,
        there was no change;
only the certain perfection of the status quo.
That's the way God made it;
        that's the way Adam found it.
And that, according to those who hold to this assumption,
        is the way it still is.
There is no room for interpretation;
        there is no place for ambiguity.
A jig-saw puzzle precise and complete.

The pay-off of this assumption for those who believe
        is that there is no cause for uncertainty:
        no need for value weighing,
        no insecurity as to choice,
        no decisions of conflict.
Such simplistic belief in a reality without contradiction
        offers the assurance of a world without responsibility -
                for the decisions have already been made.
It offers the comfort that comes from true belief.

I have reflected
upon the solace such an assumption presents
as I have witnessed the happenings
        on Capitol Hill.
Here I think the assumption of unambiguty
is playing itself out
in ways awesome and frightening.

Before examining the goings-on from this perspective,
I'd like to tell you what I see
as three dangers emergent
from a refusal - or at least an inability -
        to grasp the fundamentally ambiguous nature of life.

One is that we are not aware of or sensitive to
        the presence of legitimate
                albeit competing
values.
Life appears simpler than it is
since only a single voice
        is to be given credence.
If you only hear and validate the claim
        of law-and-order,
you do not hear or need to give weight
        to the often competing claim of compassion.

In Kinflicks, Lisa Alther makes this observation:

        I happen to feel that the degree of a person's intelligence
        is directly reflected by the number of conflicting attitudes
        she can bring to bear on the same topic.

I don't know whether the issue is intelligence
or simply ability to tolerate ambiguity:
but I think Alther's underlying premise accurate:
few topics if any
        compel (or should compel) only a single sentiment.
The more conflicting attitudes we hold
                about a given situation,
the closer we probably are to the truth.
For the world, as I see it, is not unidimensional.

When I am aware
        that I comprehend a situation
solely from a single perspective ...
with a single, and often infallible truth:
I know I am probably on the wrong path.
My passion has deafened my reason.
Life - at least life as I understand it -
calls us to hear and respond to both.

The requirement, naturally,
is that we have to be able and willing
        to recognize, validate and act upon
                these conflicting attitudes.
Often simultaneously.

Survival in a world of ambiguities begins
        with recognition of the fundamental inconsistency
                and contradictories of the universe ...
the stuff of which our lives and days are fabricated.

Not of our making. Not of our choosing.
Our fault, our loss, our blame
only if we ignore or deny.

The American author Ursola K. LeGuin states the dilemma
with this simple reminder:

        To light a candle is to cast a shadow.

To contrariness of the universe,
the ambiguity of our situation
        are always with us.
We dismiss this truth at our peril.

The myth of the Garden
        expresses a dream, a longing
        and not a history.

The second danger from failure to recognize ambiguity
is that without acceptance
        of the cogence of several values
-that law-and-order and compassion are both called for
                and relevant -
we strip ourselves
of the richness of insight
        and maturity of judgment
which comes from balancing and accommodating
        two or even more values
        at once and in the presence of each other.
We cannot ask the questions:

        How can I envision and work for a society
        which is both lawful and caring?
        How can I as a parent be both just and loving?
        How can I give my child both freedom and security?

As my examples suggest:
rather than asking either/or questions,
it is more important and useful
(and, out of deference to Lisa Alther, much wiser)
        to ask both/and questions.
How can we achieve all these goals,
        live by all our commitments?
How can we live with both freedom and security?
To do so is to accept the legitimacy of both claims, both values.

These questions are only possible
        when we allow for presence of ambiguity.

The third danger which lies within
        the denial of ambiguity
is that without the humility elicited by doubt
we become prey to the tyranny of absolutism.
We become what Eric Hoffer many years called
        The True Believer.
Without an acceptance of life's multifaceted complexity
we have no caution
to prevent us from becoming
        zealots
        or extremists.
For we know no other call,
        we recognize no other truth,
        we are certain ours is the only way.

The French philosopher Voltaire again:

        Doubt is not a pleasant state of mind,
        but certainly is absurd.

It is here that Sara Campbell in the reading Paradoxes
and I present the two edges of ambiguity:
Sara afraid that refusal to accept the presence
        of paradox will lead to inaction;
and I convinced that denial of the presence of ambiguity
        will lead to thoughtless absolutism.

The topic of this service
strikes with timely relevance
as we watch minds on both sides of the issue made up
        and votes cast
even before the case against the President is made or rebutted.

Despite protestations to the contrary
and assurances to constituents of fair - and open - mindedness,
it seems clear that the votes and expressions
        of many of our solons
are the result
not of judicious acknowledgment and weight of evidence,
but of party allegiance and ideological rigidity.
Neither side is immune.

If the House members had been genuinely - sincerely -
trying to listen to the case
        and make up their mind accordingly
- with no higher allegiance than to justice -
could it truly have been only coincidence
        that led all the Democrats to vote one way
        and all the Republicans another?

Sixteen or seventeen years ago
I earned an A+ in elementary statistics ...
enough to tell me that such a vote
        is simply not a possibility.
Uncertainty and personal judgment
        just would not have produced such a result.
Defies that adds if ...
if the members of the House
        could have tolerated ambiguity
long enough and openly enough
        to have come to their own conclusions
based on the material they were even now hearing.

Not that they are alone.
We have, I think, almost all of us
        very low tolerance for ambiguity.
We are comfortable
                neither by nature
                nor by training.

        Everything is ambiguous, writes Sheila Ballantyne
        in Norma Jean the Termite Queen,
        It's exciting, in a way, if you can tolerate the ambiguity.
        I can't but I'm taking a course where it's taught,
                in the hope of acquiring the skill.
        It's called Modern living, and you get no credit.

Perhaps no credit,
        but you do get in touch with reality.
For life is not linear.
        The answers are not all given
                before you embark upon the voyage.

The four definitions of 'ambiguity'
offered by the unabridged Webster's Third International
while different, all point to the same phenomena:
that life presents contradictions,
values - good, sound values - do not all agree,
and individuals are caught at the point of choice.
Ours is a journey through the straits of ambiguity.

Should we impeach all those
        who took an oath to hear the evidence with impartiality
and yet had made up their minds
        to follow the party line
before they heard a word of argument?

I like that.

XVIIIth Century playwright John Gay wrote:

        When we risk no contradictions,
        it prompts the tongue to deal in fiction.

Ambiguity: "the intellectual or emotional interplay or tension resulting from the opposition or contra posing of apparently incompatible or contradictory elements or levels of meaning"

Not pleasant. Not easy.
Not even for the faint-hearted.
But the way life is.

And, I would add,
the direction alone
        in which growth and true understanding lie.