Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
- State Dept. Releases Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement
Popular content
Today's Top News
As Santorum and Romney Battle for the Loony Right, the Rest of Us Should Not Gloat
My father was a Republican for the first 78 years of his life. For the last twenty, he’s been a Democrat (he just celebrated his 98th.) What happened? “They lost me,” he says.
They’re losing even more Americans now, as the four remaining GOP candidates seek to out-do one another in their race for the votes of the loony right that’s taken over the Grand Old Party.
(Photo: REUTERS/Joshua Lott)
But the rest of us have reason to worry.
A party of birthers, creationists, theocrats, climate-change deniers, nativists, gay-bashers, anti-abortionists, media paranoids, anti-intellectuals, and out-of-touch country clubbers cannot govern America.
Yet even if they lose the presidency on Election Day they’re still likely to be in charge of at least one house of Congress as well as several state legislators and governorships. That’s a problem for the nation.
The GOP’s drift toward loopyness started in 1993 when Bill Clinton became the first Democrat in the White House in a dozen years – and promptly allowed gays in the military, pushed through the Brady handgun act, had the audacity to staff his administration with strong women and African-Americans, and gave Hillary the task of crafting a national health bill. Bill and Hillary were secular boomers with Ivy League credentials who thought government had a positive role to play in peoples’ lives.
This was enough to stir right-wing evangelicals in the South, social conservatives in the Midwest and on the Great Plains, and stop-at-nothing extremists in Washington and the media who hounded Bill Clinton for eight years, then stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, and Swift-boated John Kerry in 2004.
They were not pleased to have a Democrat back in the White House in 2008, let alone a black one. They rose up in the 2010 election cycle as “tea partiers” and have by now pushed the GOP further right than it has been in more than eighty years. Even formerly sensible senators like Olympia Snowe, Orrin Hatch, and Dick Lugar are moving to the extreme right in order to keep their seats.
At this rate the GOP will end up on the dust heap of history. Young Americans are more tolerant, cosmopolitan, better educated, and more socially liberal than their parents. And relative to the typical middle-aged America, they are also more Hispanic and more shades of brown. Today’s Republican Party is as relevant to what America is becoming as an ice pick in New Orleans.
In the meantime, though, we are in trouble. America is a winner-take-all election system in which a party needs only 51 percent (or, in a three-way race, a plurality) in order to gain control.
In parliamentary systems of government, small groups representing loony fringes can be absorbed relatively harmlessly into adult governing coalitions.
But here, as we’re seeing, a loony fringe can take over an entire party — and that party will inevitably take over some part of our federal, state, and local governments.
As such, the loony right is a clear and present danger.
Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future; The Work of Nations; Locked in the Cabinet; Supercapitalism; and his newest, Beyond Outrage. His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
276 Comments so far
Show AllThis issue is turn linked to another, which Morin, Korzybski and many others have also stressed: our paradigmatic enmeshment in an invisible web of Aristotelian thinking. Whitehead called this the "Fallacy of Bifurcation."
Arguing for humanity's urgent need for "a reform in thinking Morin describes this phenomenon - the black/white, right/wrong, approach to problem-solving, as -
"simplistic in the extreme, which underlies so many dialogues, [leading] inevitably to dead-ends…[This occurs in part because it is] blind to inter-retro actions and circular causality."
The problem, it would seem, is our proclivity for a "reducio ad absurdum" approach to life - the notion that all of reality must be able to be categorized as either "this" or "that."
This deeply embedded assumption is, in turn, yet another symptom of deficient phase of mental consciousness.
Aristotle lived during at a time when the fresh, bright light of logic was just emerging out of the earlier "mythical" (and before that, "magical") structure of consciousness. But the insights and advances of one era can, over the centuries wear thin - especially when they are deified and become regarded the only paradigm with which consciousness can "rightly" be concerned.
The ongoing development of life and society are matched by new kinds of problems. When the former paradigm (or worldview) begins to lose its effectiveness in solving our increasingly complex challenges, it is time to look beyond the ideas, assumptions, and solutions we have relied upon in the past.
If there is anything we need at this time it is creative solutions
One of the key characteristics Frank Barron found in creative individuals was that their entire approach to what are considered antinomies, polarities, or oppositions in society did not conform to the usual, conventional lens through which most people view problems.
He reported that It was almost as if - both in their personality and in their mental process - creative individuals take as their point of departure a "both/and" rather than "either/or" orientation.
I see this mode of creativity is one of the essential qualities we need to cultivate and nurture within ourselves. From my perspective it is an essential ingredient in making "a world that works" - a reality.
We do need to look for the deep sources of the impasses confronting contemporary humanity. And, in our search for solutions, one of the places we have not yet looked is our need for a more sophisticated understanding of different kinds and levels of change.
According to Watzlawick, a dilemma arises when we limit our thinking to our traditional “Aristotelian” two-valued (“either/or”) logic, which can set up artificial divisions and polarizations. For instance, if “A” represents a problem - it is logical to conclude that “Not-A” represents a solution.
However, in certain types of dilemmas this stance will lead the would-be “problem-solver” into a double-bind in which he or she is bound to a set of assumptions in which a workable solution cannot be described because it lies outside the frame of reference being used.
Yet, "the problem-solver" is bound to one frame of reference only because their own assumed rules of problem solution are linear and fixed. The only conceivable solutions are “more or less of the same” - a change in quantity not quality.
***
Time to return to the top of the thread, as the posting space is once again getting mighty thin!
***
"...the indispensable minimum of humanity in a learning community…is caring enough to have a [genuine] interchange…Hearing and responding to one another are the simplest prerequisites for a learning community."
So we should hear out every asshole even if they are a Nazis bent on genocide, or a Bolshevik bent on putting unbelievers in the gulag, or a Catholic who wants to bring back the inquisition, or a neo-con or Oily Bomber bent on endless war for mercantilist corporations and Israel? Excuse me if I pass on being so open minded minded that my brains fall out. Yes to judging people on the content of their character and not superficial physical characteristics, no to not judging people, that is the kind of falsely "enlightened" thinking that allows oppressors to organize unhindered.
FUCK THAT.
Oh noes did I say something "impolite?" Sob! Some people DO need to be "shut out" of the conversation for the good of the weak, the poor, and the planet. Do you really not get that? I suspect you DO in fact get that and just got carried away in rhetorical excess, shocking I know coming from a calm disciplined thinker, who writes crisply edited paragraphs such as yourself.
Sigh!
*******
“The starting point is the recognition that the major problems of our time are all part and parcel of the same crisis - a crisis of perception. By major problems I mean the threat of nuclear war, the devastation of the natural environment, and the persistence of hunger and poverty around the world. Our social institutions, our politicians, business people, and so on are using an outdated worldview to solve these problems, a worldview which is no longer appropriate. At the same time we are seeing a change in consciousness, an emerging new vision of reality. Our dominant culture is in decline because it subscribes to outdated concepts and values.”
--- Fritjof Capra
*******
It is now 2012 and a growing number of respected philosophers of science and culture are finally suggesting that our modern, rational, sophisticated way of life is a causative, rather than ameliorative factor in the humanity's current cul-de-sac.
One need only turn on the news any day to be bombarded with a now familiar litany of global problems:
shrinking rainforests…
climate change...
contamination of the groundwater below the land masses, and of the oceans…
increased air pollution and resulting respiratory illness…
the ongoing possibility of a nuclear holocaust and our inability to find a safe way to dispose of nuclear wastes…
an extraordinary population explosion…
an increasing polarization between poor and rich, with exponentially growing numbers of “have-nots”…
Ongoing economic exploitation...
increasing hunger and famine in the world…
domestic and international violence...
increased numbers of refugees fleeing economic, political or ecological conditions… deepening racism and ethnic tensions…
chronic proliferation and use of drugs such as crack and heroin…
an AIDS epidemic (in Africa it is possible that 1/3 of pregnant women are HIV-positive)…
multinational businesses becoming the world’s most powerful social institutions with no moral or ethical obligations to anyone but their shareholders…
The list, of course, goes on and on.
Yes I am "rigid" when it comes to staying focused on the actual social conditions caused by real people at the root of our very serious problems in the U.S. and Europe. Greed which is at the root of war mongering, environmental destruction, and oppressive power over exploitation relations is not caused by the alignment of the stars, it's a choice by people for the most part born into power and privilege to continue their privilege through mass murder, land theft, earth raping, and exploiting people they see as weaker. The enemy is not some vague non existent "spiritual" force, it's these actual real people with names and addresses like Henry Kissinger, Barack Obama, the Koch brothers, etc, etc, and all focusing on non existent "energies" does is keep us from focusing on our actual real secular enemies the social structure they serve, and figuring out how to defeat them. Defeat them hopefully with non violence. but if they choose to institute concentration camps and genocide of Muslims, atheists, the poor, dissidents etc, then with real ugly hard physical battle as described by George Orwell in "Homage to Catalonia." Do you think Orwell mooned around about "spiritual" matters? No he manned a machine gun and did his best to ACTUALLY fight the fascists in Spain, something I think the gutless "spiritual" wonders of the modern left would be wholly incapable of doing. I think you'd rather chant OM while people were drug off to gas chambers then actually fight the bastards, and SHAME ON YOU for that. Militant, hostile, rational, rigid (ie focused), when confronted with the horror of state capitalism, you bet!
Why I am hostile is I think weakness, and fuzzy minded distraction is utterly toxic to overcoming these ASSHOLES. They don't don't care at all what you think about them, only if you have the guts to physically stop what they are doing. I have stood in front an angry logger to physically stop them from cutting ancient forest in the Pacific Northwest, I have slept in a tree sit at 150 feet in the air in a rain storm, I have been arrested locking down to a saw mill gate logging old growth, I have been arrested with Food Not Bombs, I have spend months canvassing door to door with Greenpeace, I have marched against the wars regardless of which mercantile capatlist funded party was in power, have either of you done anything REAL to stop these assholes? If not you have a lot of damn nerve complaining about "rigid," or a vote for Ron Paul for that who would ACTUALLY stop the wars. Does ACTUALLY stopping these assholes ie physical results count for anything among progressives, or are you content with vague good intentions as a "spiritual," force? Hint your good intentions ain't going to save you when empire ends, the financier class utterly collapses from unsustainable nation state level larceny, peak oil and global climate change REALLY kick in. If you refuse to physically fight you better learn how to garden and survive some hard times that will make the great depression look like a picnic.
Is that real and "rigid" enough for ya? The time for "whirled peas," fantasy is over, your good intentions mean NOTHING! Shit or get off the pot...
You make many assumptions about people you do not know. Does it ever occur to you that you might be addressing good people.? Where did you get the notion that you were the only one who ever fought for anything? Or, the only one here who could fight?
I respect what you have done in the past, but I have no respect for your present attitude.
Take care, Mr.Crow
Thomas Gilbert-
People can have all the good intentions in the world and if they don't act on them in the real world they are worse than useless, actually downright harmful in fact because they can distract people who may actually act on their convictions instead of merely mentally masturbate about non existent "levels of reality," and other narcissistic nihilistic crap.
Something's weird about this thread. Either Amma21 is talking to him/herself or the replies are misplaced. Did I miss something?
Hi max,
What in the world brought you to this thread...."old" as it is?
When I began this process some days ago I noted that this seemed like a reasonable place to share some observations about the goings-on on a still older thread. I felt that examining both the content and process of communication more closely might offer some valuable insights.
I was fine with using the space here to think out loud on my own. I have been joined on this journey by another CD member, and you are most welcome to hang in and stay with this "experiment" as I'm bringing it to a close - or not, as the spirit moves you.
Amma and Dante, my apologies about the misunderstanding. I appreciate what you wrote though and just wanted to be sure. This site has had a history of misplaced replies and I just wanted to make sure. As for why I came back late, I couldn't care much about the thread being a few days old. So what if I'm behind? There's no penalty for being late and it's in some ways respecting those who posted late because they might have been busy at the time the article was posted or something along those lines. It's all good though.
Hi Max,
I usually check the tracking on the sites I comment on also.
Thomas Gilbert-
Hi Max,
The script got messed up at the bottom of the thread..., Amma is addressing me...At times it looks like we both are talking to ourselves.....I can see why you would think the thread went "weird." lol
Thomas Gilbert-
Amma21 is verbally preening in front of the internet mirror Maxpayne, narcissistictly spewing a stream verbal diarrhea with no regard for anyone but her self. You are best off ignoring it in my estimation. I do suspect she has a good stash of kind buds though, that part I am mildly jealous of. :)
(con't from Mar 13 2012 - 1:39am posting)
Communication theorist and psychotherapist Paul Watzlawick, for example, has discussed two levels of change. “1st-order change” refers to change within a given system. Here, the system itself remains unchanged, while its elements or parts undergo some kind of change. “2nd order change” refers to change of the system itself, where the system is transformed in term of its structure or communication patterns.
An example with which we are all familiar would be that of a person having a nightmare. He or she can do many things in the dream - run, scream, hide, fight, - but no change from any one of these behaviors to another can itself end the nightmare. In such a predicament, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The one way out of a dream, obviously, involves waking up - a change from dreaming to a completely different state.
In this case (as in many others) first-order change is incapable of effecting the desired change, because here, the system’s structure itself must undergo change, a change that can only be effected from the second-order change level.
We have all, at moments, had the experience of being caught in comparable binds or “boxes;” From “inside the box,” a solution arising from a second-order perspective appears as a surprising flash. But from a vantage-point “outside the box,” it is simply a process of shifting from one set of presuppositions to another.
The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s is another example of unworkable solutions. As enforcement of the prohibition became more stringent, “more of the same” did not produce the desired result. On the contrary the “solution” greatly contributed to the problem. Solutions of this kind can be predicted to escalate a difficulty if they continue to be applied.
The same complications are involved in many refractory human problems where common sense would suggest that the way to counteract a painful or disturbing fact is by introducing its opposite into the situation. The principle illustrated is simply that first-order change is incapable of effecting the desired change, because in certain cases, the systems’ structure itself must undergo change, a change which can only be effected from the 2nd order change level.
We can see other examples of this phenomenon in the communications that were taking place on the thread I have been discussing.
I would say that the following is a representative sample of B's postings on the original thread. And, in light of "levels of change" theory - he seems to me to be
"counteracting a painful or disturbing fact is by introducing its opposite into the situation."
Yet, as A remained unmoved - (perhaps other than manifesting an increasingly contemptuous tone) - “more of the same” did not produce the desired result - dialogue, a fair exchange of views, expressions of openness. As already noted, solutions of the "equal and opposite/more of the same" can actually escalate a difficulty if they continue to be applied.
*************
B wrote:
Have you anything beside condescending rudeness, personal attacks, and outright denial of anything good in the world -- to base your postings upon ?
You insidiously twist the facts, insinuating a massive champaign of rapacious proselytizing -- casting the worst of all possible motives -- underneath and to undermine those selflessly giving their time, energy and lives in the service of all of us....
It's a true shame, that you've completely acknowledged a total prejudice against anything related to "New Age" points of view.
If you have no experience or desire to learn anything about any of this, how is it possible for you to be so "*absolutely certain,*" of such "snake oil huckster … fraudster dribble" that you YOURSELF promulgate ?
How is it possible for you to be so "*absolutely certain,*" of such "scam artists," when you promulgate your own SCAMS ?
How is it possible for you to be so "*absolutely certain,*" of such "misusing scientific terminology to bilk the credulous," when you promulgate your own bilking ?...
How odd, that you stereotype and paint an extremely broad brush, against ANYTHING to do with higher consciousness, spirituality, and/or integrating our disparate human beingness parts -- and fallaciously claim that it epitomizes the very worse of the Capitalistic extremes of: boundless rapacity, unrelenting self-serving deceptions and manipulations, disdain for humane treatment, lack of remorse, lack of compassion, hurtful even malevolent intentions, and outright cruel taking advantages of the weak promising the solution to all of their troubles...
How exactly is "a hard left that is going to overcome militarism and corporatism," supposedly -- severely jeopardized and/or self-destructively lost -- by learning about their inner greatness and how to love and care better for their children, parents, friends, co-workers, and community ?
How exactly is "a hard left … basing their worldview" on the most profound and meaningful ideas ever achieved by humans, something supposedly bad or sad ?
Are you somehow attempting to conflate "hardness" and "goodness" ?
If so, you're completely wet -- as there's only one thing that has to be "hard" to be good -- and this isn't it.
It appears that you've missed the boat -- of your 'burden of proof' -- and are swimming way over your head, in waters that scare the living S*** out of you -- for no reason or logic that you can delineate.
B continued to apply the "equal and opposite/more of the same" approach. Again, I think is a fairly typical response by B on the original thread:
**************
...And your provably exaggerated righteous certainty about "invariant" reality, in no manner is capable of "wish[ing] away" my spiritual reality.
Anyone ever mention to you, that you cannot create within another's experience ?...
It appears that you adamantly adhere to a very simplistic hierarchical model of reality, where what someone in authority tells another, that THAT is exactly the way it is, and no other way....
You want to talk about the "invariant" aspects of physical reality, but grant no existence to comparable invariance of never being able to fully understand another's experience -- ABSOLUTELY and CERTAINLY -- not having the power to tell them what that experience IS, means to them, or is not.
Your de-humanizing rhetoric -- I will take only up to a point.
I don't mind in the least, if you OWN your own thoughts and experiences, saying this means nothing to mrcrow, but you go too far, when you violate my own inner sanctum's experiences -- AS IF you know better than me, what I feel and experience.
Your habituated "fluff[ing] of it is crude, and outrageously beyond the bounds of polite conversation
~~~
Your supposedly sharpest tool is conflating nonsense, to anything that you oppose.
That really isn't about discussing or even arguing.
I've never advocated or prophesied the benefits of DOOM-mongering and/or holding others with contempt, which is simplistic variations on fear- and/or hate-mongerering and rapacious warmongering.
Higher consciousness is by definition, getting beyond reactive habituated Reptilian thinking, which you seem to prefer.
… … … The antidote to FEAR,
… … … is LOVE,
as C.H. informs us repeatedly, as do I … … …
Drawing, in part, from the early work of A.N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell on "logical levels," Watzlawick has referred to the experience of this kind of impasse as being caught in a "Game Without End."
This is a game cannot generate from within itself the conditions for its own change, nor can it produce a change in its own rules; neither can it create a shift from a group focus at the level of content, to one at the next highest level, that of process or pattern. In this case such a change would be "meta" to participants' premises about the "posting game" itself, and no provision is made for this possibility.
In any case the operative thought-form is that "someone or something" should change - but only at a first-order-level.
In fact in a "Game Without End" many different solutions can be attempted within the frame that is already given, but they invariably lead to the same outcome, namely, zero second-order change. Replacing this game with a new one would necessarily involve dealing with the frame itself - that is, with the class and not with its members.
You have thought yourself into a fractal maze without exit. Here is a clue, not everything you think inside your head exists outside your subjective mental constructs. Meanwhile getting distracted by this fantastical ruminating has very real consequences in the world as you lose the thread of WHO (an actual living breathing person) is doing the oppressing. Please tell me you are a college sophomore and not a post college adult living in the world?
You are just as bad off mentally as those religious retards in the middle ages who earnestly debated how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Hint they didn't have anti biotics or the internet then, and there is a reason for that, endless navel gazing and fantasizing kills curiosity about the real world that leads to research that bring real gains, and instead leads superstitious/religious/spiritual people to lead brutal short lives before dying of horrible disfiguring diseases at an early age. The plague ring a bell? That was caused by demons wasn't it?
Sigh!
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices."
---William James
*******
My goal was to generate one or more "other frames," and move things along toward a second-order level of change. I would attempt to change the frame to one that was more encompassing. Clearly, however, in the final analysis this approach did not work as I hoped it would...
The absurdity, after all, was striking: A wasn't going to listen or dialogue - and he/she was sounding like a broken record (or robot) stuck on "attack." Beyond this, A addressed others as if he were God Almighty: knowing the Truth and deigning to share it - from On High.
From another perspective, it could perhaps be said that he/she seemed more like a "High-chair King", and exhibiting all the infantile grandiosity that goes with this "title." It was evident that A used words like a child, including name-calling and denigrating those with whom he disagreed (and probably others at times).
I had no doubt that this person had an innate, native intelligence; from my perspective, however, it appeared more like a "blind intelligence" - one that is riddled through and through with arrogance, and an unwillingness to be wrong.
Once I realized that - "No way is this person going to engage in cooperative inquiry," and that, in fact, what we had here was not simply a "failure to communicate" but a Game Without End, as well - I decided to try "serious playfulness."
Shifting into another voice, I shared three observations: 1) that A seemed to be enjoying the punch-up; 2) my assessment that it was A's assumptions and premises that were at the root of what I saw as his/her problem; and 3) that A's mind seemed to be as open as a steel-trap tightly closed upon its victim (but that the victim was first and foremost, none other than A him- or herself!).
I wrote:
"...a little birdy told me you've already made up your mind and are enjoying the fight.
...First of all, hollerin, hoootin,' n' scrappin's as good a way as any to pass the time 'till lunch....or death - whichever comes first. Really, S'Ok. It's your funeral.
Second, fightin' with other humans has ancient and historic roots, not to mention it bein' a source of joy since forever - ya' know like fighting fish, elks, or soldier ants.
What can one say? It's like sex. Mammals and other critters jes like doing it.
Seriously, I may be mistaken, but from what I can see - learnin' something new (and 'specially somethin that would genuinely challenge and pretty much crack open a few of your notions/preconceptions, just don't seem to be on your 'genda."
I tried yet another "voice" - hoping against hope that A might crack a smile and join me in some non-toxic fun, that in turn, might open up the space for real dialogue. A's need to dominate others who saw things differently was obvious.
I thought: "Why not try emphasizing the one-down position in which he was attempting to put me (and of course, B). Might a little bit of tickling catalyze in A some awareness that this was in fact where he was coming from?"
~~~
Changing voice again, I wrote:
Missa "A's,"
Dems alotta big words towards missa da point, massa,
*
You ain't by iny chance done read mah (date) and (date) posts?
Jes sayin', missa "A's," jes' sayin'
(I should make it clear that this little back-and-forth quickly lost its ability to amuse or even interest me. I stayed with it for a few days, more or less, as an experiment - and with a desire to act as a counter-weight to what I viewed as a toxic presence - a person who seemed to be enjoying the opportunity to denigrate and shame others.)
Once again, I tried yet another approach. What would happen if I focused on A's "need to be right" - as well as his/her desire to make others "wrong?"
Given that A's primary mode of speaking involved generating antagonism and animosity (especially, but not exclusively, when it came to anything even remotely having to do with "New Age" topics) I thought that a quote from Tolle would both raise the bar and serve as a reflection, while at the same time being an irritant.
I shared this quote:
~~~
"He didn't have the decency to return my call.
"She let me down.
"Little stories we tell ourselves and others, often in the form of complaints. They are unconsciously designed to enhance our always deficient sense of self through being 'right' and making something or someone 'wrong.'
"Being 'right' places us in a position of imagined superiority and so strengthens our false sense of self, the ego. This also creates some kind of enemy: yes, the ego needs enemies to define its boundary, and even the weather can serve that function.
"Through habitual mental judgment and emotional contraction, you have a personalized, reactive relationship to people and events in your life. These are forms of self-created suffering, but they are not recognized as such because to the ego they are satisfying. The ego enhances itself through reactivity and conflict."
~~~~~~~~~
A swing and a miss.....Stee-rike!
Nada, zip, zero, zilch.....
Over the short time I stayed on board this discussion train, I composed posts to 'come in' at various angles: some intended to be humorous, others serious; some direct, others, less so.
As already mentioned, I came up with the following ditty as I was withdrawing from discussion. I wondered if possibly creating a frame in which I could present myself in "the third person" in a short story-like snippet might have some effect...who knew?
Here we join narrator and seeming protagonist as he ruminates about the conversations between A and himself. He has assumed the mantle of A's position of absolute certitude, while at the same time mocking this attitude:
I posted:
~~~
...His reaction became more pensive and he thought: "His loss, I guess."
"Then again," he reflected, "I've done my absolute best to leave both clues, clear statements, and real resources by which this fella might - perhaps at some point in his life - start to question his belief-system and unconscious assumptions."
Still, he couldn't help from taking a deep breath that was like a sigh: "I guess for the moment my work is done, and at least I have no regrets about making an effort to serve the potential that lies sleeping in this human-person."
And then it suddenly occurred to him: "UNLESS I'VE BEEN DEAD-WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING...."
But he quickly put that thought into its final resting place: "Nah, couldn't be. After all, I'VE GOT ALL THE ANSWERS - and these are unquestionably final...End Of Story."
He closed his eyes with a self-satisfied smile and knew he would sleep like a baby.
***
As one might expect by now, this made neither a dent, or even a ding.
The Game Without End just continued rolling ahead along its circular track.
Although I want to close this inquiry by offering a few observations of a systemic nature, at this point I'd like to say a few things about A's presentation of self and its implications for both dialogic conversation, as well as the dilemmas with which contemporary culture is now confronted.
I can imagine many folks reading the original comments thinking to themselves, "What the hell is wrong with "A?"
And that of course is one of the big "elephants in the room." In exploring this I intend to be as respectful of A - the person - as I possibly can. At the same time, for his sake, as well as for any general learning that can be gleaned from this inquiry, I also want to be at least somewhat direct and to articulate what I see as clearly as I can.
We can immediately notice a number of characteristics which A - in his comments on the original thread - seems to demonstrate. I want to begin by noting three of these, which I will call: 1) immovability/dogmatism, 2) arrogance and use of insulting scornful language, and 3) negativity/rage.
Before doing so I want to unequivocally state that at times A offered carefully-thought-out, substantive arguments; that there were a number of moments where it looked like he was open to a genuine exchange of views; and that he/she seemed to feel a heartfelt commitment to, and compassion for the sufferings of people resulting from socio-economic exploitation.
I also gained insights that were/are important in terms of my own growth. Paramount among these: I noticed that the more deeply I looked at the whole picture of what had been happening on the original thread, the more compassion I experienced. And this very much included compassion for A - the human being behind the letters on a computer screen.
I am reminded of what Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said: "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”...And I might add: enough tears to fill an ocean of grief.
To some degree A seemed like a portrait "writ large" of the inner tendencies with which we all need to struggle - and which now constitute a threat to all life on earth.
"It appears that you adamantly adhere to a very simplistic hierarchical model of reality, where what someone in authority tells another, that THAT is exactly the way it is, and no other way...."
Ummm no that would be you lady, YOU are the one who accepts things on "faith" ie what some religious or spiritual authority tells you, *I* am the one who demands theories be *tested* against objectively existing, ie reality itself is the arbiter of truth, not some mere human authority. That is why science is changing and evolving at a rapid rate, while spiritual and religious idiocy stays stuck in ruts for a thousand years at a stretch. The epistemological difference between faith and the scientific method In flow chart form it looks like this:
http://www.bspcn.com/2007/12/29/science-vs-faith-flowchart/
P.S. "As do I," is some pretentious diction, are you thinking of starting a cult speaking that way with the royal we?