A Conflict of Visions enlarged

We are more familiar with "conflict of interest" (COI). When the official duty and private desire are in conflict with each other, that's conflict of interest 101 for us. How about the conflict of visions? Maybe not as frequent in occurance compare to COI. Does it mean that there are two contradictory desire or inspirational statement of future in competition? When I speak conflict of visions, "the word "visions" are not in our general presumption of the word. Vison is not about future plan (vision-mission). Vision that we are discussing here is base on Thomas Sowell's thought. Vision, according to Sowell is a "sense" on how the world works. Every society though the ages have the conflicting vision in personal or more communal in scope. Sowell give an example on how the primitive man sense that leaves move because spirit move the leaves. And this explanation is completely different of Aristotle, Newton and Einstein in explaining the causation in detail or nutshell. Notwithstanding, we all have different visions of the world and therefore, our visions are practically in conflicts with each other. 

Going deep into the main division of visions, Sowell give a distinction between constrained visions and unconstrained visions. The former is about the thought and ideology on how the world works. Dealing more with "is". The latter is about the thought and ideology on how the world should works. Dealing more with "ought", the ideal type as sociologist would define it, that way. The other clarification of both in term of decision making is that the constrained visions will choose something base on personal and immediate concern with the help of traditions whereas the unconstrained visions make decisions, for the benefit of whole society using the personal reason as their guide. From these visions, which one is the best? According to Sowell, both have their own place. Neither constrained and unconstrained are in dichotomy. All are contributed to make common good paramount, through different means. 

In this case I agree with Sowell in some extent. The conflicting visions in the world is good for it can create progress. Without conflicts of visions, there is only a static and very thin dimension of vision. Responding to Sowell vision, one of valid critique of Sowell was coming from Brayan Caplan in his review whereby he argue that although the two visions of Sowell are coherent, there are some ideology and movement that cannot fit to the category, particularly of the irrational and the one which in constant polemic toward the tradition (irrational modes of discretion). The example of this is fascisms a vision fueled by the authoritarianism and forcible violence. The vision of Sowell need to be enlarged for the middle ideology floating alienated in air without fit in category.

In case of enlarging the vision a bit more, I start by posting this question, where we are going after all this?  For me personally, Sowell's vision need to be enlarged in its foundation. To encompassed also the notion of ultimate vision as basis. The ultimate vision is a vision that derived not from tradition nor reason. It was originated from God, revealed in his sacred Scripture. Without the ultimate vision, people only stop in describing and prescribing the world but never found the meaning and telos underneath the activity of envisioning. To this matter, of course, the ultimate vision is not found in religion because religion is also the part and puzzle of the constrained visions and unconstrained visions. In religion there will be endless conflicting visions as most religion are exclusive in nature of it visions, pertaining the core doctrine (Excluding the practice and ritual which often are more or less similar in expression).  

Apparently, Christian worldview moves beyond both realms and can provide this ultimate vision. To guide and judge all the visions rather than holding and embracing all the visions (This contrary to the notion of religious pluralism). For essentially, Christian belief does not base on ideology or religion as Karl Barth said with confident that Christianity abolish or remove religion (Aufhebung) because the core of Christianity is not a system but the very person of Jesus Christ. Many sees that Karl Barth claim is very radical and a excessive. Actually, Karl Barth did not try to remove religion completely off the board. He still exalts the religious practice that align with what God revealed in Christ Jesus. What he try to convey in his church Dogmatic CD 1/2 in relation to visions that religion is inadequate as a "vehicle" of God's revelation. Religion cannot be the base of ultimate vision. Without ultimate vision, at the end of the day, human visions will always be in conflict with each other without any wrapped conclusion in course of time. The conflicts of visions will potentially lead humanity to unresolved tensions and unending chaos so consequently, human are not writing and tell countless history of war. War is the history!