From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 00:15:51 MDT
Samantha writes
> [Lee wrote]
> > I have tried to start discussions on this topic a number
> > of times but with little success. But *why* should people
> > be reluctant to objectively discuss their political
> > differences? God knows that there is no shortage of
> > actual political dispute, but except for me on this list
> > (or so it seems) no one is interested in examining the
> > roots and ultimate reasons *behind* the disagreements.
>
> A bit of reluctance might stem from being pigeon-holed from the
> get-go, don't you think?
That's possible! Honestly, it didn't occur to me. Even though
there exist very clear and obvious correlations between almost all
of one's views and those of certain other people, one might be
reluctant to admit it out of fear of being "labeled" or
pigeon-holed. I'm implying that they would resist being found
out to be a member of a class, because this would threaten
their self-image of uniqueness. I think that you are on to
something here. (See my list of issues below before replying,
thanks.)
> Hmmm. I feel like I may be being set up, but exactly why do you
> believe no one cares about such things but you? Do you really
> believe no one else cares? Perhaps they just don't frame the
> "problem" in quite the same way.
Um, confession time: I created the title to this thread a
bit out of frustration. While it *did* seem to me that no
one wanted to discuss what makes liberals liberal, what
makes conservatives conservative, and what makes libertarians
libertarian and so on---because before this no one picked up
on my invitations to discuss, and I still was not sure that
there would be any takers, now I see that there are a
few (though half want to just inform me that I'm mistaken
and misguided in my quest here).
> Actually I believe that most people, regardless of intelligence
> and level of fundamental goodwill, tend to be caught in certain
> primary modes or stages of consciousness that hopefully evolve
> over time. Most of the power of their mind centers around
> the fundamental stage they are at any particular point in
> time. On this list a lot of "orange" rational level
> predominates. But more than a little "red" power level - no one
> tells me what to do, and blue "my group/country/ism is the one
> true way and all others should be converted or removed" can be
> seen often. Sometimes "green" pluralistic appreciation for
> multiple viewpoints/cultures/opinions appears. But these
> particular levels all consider themselves "right" and all the
> others seriously lacking and even contemptible. Much more
> rarely you will see a bit of "second-tier" appreciation for what
> multiple levels/stages are about and what their relative
> strengths and weakness are and how they shade into one another.
This is quite interesting, though one worrisome point
is that you believe these "evolve". This seems to me
to indicate that you think some of these preferable to
others, or that some are immature.
> > Yet even though folks are as conscious as I of the reality
> > of the political spectrum, the deeper explanation behind
> > their avoidance of the subject has IMO four sources:
> >
>
> The political spectrum is much more complex than "right" -
> "left" and is itself only one corner of human reality evinced
> here and in our lives.
Yes, of course. But if we were to draw up some extensive
list of issues such as:
profiling
invading Iraq
global warming
gun control
reparations
affirmative action
social safety net
Monica Lewinsky and Bill
Vietnam War
immigration
just to name the first ten that come to mind, don't you
and the other skeptics think that indeed there would be
awesome correlations? It would be *almost* entirely the
same group on the same side (your side, the side I'll
call left) and almost exactly the remainder of the folks
on Mike Lorrey's side (which I'll call right). Or do
you think that if you knew 8 of 10 positions that someone
took---say, just for example that they were *for* racial
profiling, *against* gun control, *for* invading Iraq,
skeptical that global warming (if it exists) is caused
by humankind, *against* reparations and affirmative
action... would you be unwilling to wager about their
views about whether or not we should finance a social
safety net?
> > Another reason is that it diminishes the force of their own
> > denunciations of their political opponents. It's simply a
> > lot harder if you've removed from your arsenal the pejorative
> > terms "silly", "stupid", "short-sighted", "unprincipled",
> > "mean-spirited", "blind", "lying", "morally bankrupt",
> > "cowardly", "unethical", "evil", "anti-American", "fascist",
> > "ridiculous", and so on, and to still deliver the strident
> > criticism that your heart aches for.
>
> All of those terms are not necessarily without merit in some
> circumstances. And not just to undermined someone with a
> different viewpoint either. Often opinions on here, mine much
> included are indeed "short-sighted". Sometimes they are "evil"
> in appearance. Sometimes they do appear quite repugnant. But
> it is not a manner necessarily of wanting to use strident
> criticism to bludgeon one's opponent to say so. Sometimes the
> most honest thing to express is one's sense of incredulity in
> the face of what seems very much wrong and even very dangerous.
What is the purpose of venting your sense of incredulity?
Moreover, it's *rarely* "incredible" now, really, isn't it?
Are you really surprised (after having read a lot of our
posts) the positions that Mike Lorrey, or Brian Phillips,
Brian Williamson, or I take (just to name the first three
that come to mind)? I'm in fact *rarely* surprised, although
it does happen.
> > A third reason is philosophical. Just as many cling to first-
> > person accounts of phenomena as revealing truths inaccessible
> > to others or to rational discourse, so many also believe that
> > objectivity itself is impossible, or the urge for it misguided.
>
> I don't believe, from long experience at attempting the same,
> that what most people call "objective" and "rational" covers
> quite a bit of very important things in life and our interactions.
Well, we've always disagreed on that :-) no surprise! I happen
to think that almost all truths worthy of the name are rational
and objective. (Interestingly, this is one issue that doesn't
follow very strongly down the usual division.)
> > though they do admit that the unacceptable views of their
> > political opponents in fact arise from obsolete, discredited,
> > or oppressive cultural assumptions (unlike their own which are
> > of course enlightened, progressive, modern, egalitarian, and
> > superior in several other ways). Or they believe that the
> > unacceptable views of their opponents arise from the sinister
> > success of certain international conspiracies or intellectual fads.
>
> Precisely why are you yourself apparently putting down all
> others and denigrating their strawman motives as concocted
> by yourself?
Hmm. Sounds like a loaded question 8^D
I am putting down those right-wingers who believe
that liberals are wicked people holding subversive
views involved in a conspiracy to destroy traditional
values, and left-wingers who consider conservatives to
be sinister war-mongers intent on social repression
and on military/economic domination of the world.
For starters.
But I'm not sure I answered your question.
> > A fourth reason related to all three of the foregoing is that
> > if you come from a certain one of the above positions, then
> > even the very *effort* to start a discussion such as this is
> > seen as a subtle ploy to advance one's own agenda. A number
> > of list regulars that I know will perceive with zero doubt in
> > their minds that this itself is *far* from an honest inquiry,
> > and is instead merely subterfuge designed to promote my own views.
>
> Well, it doesn't look very honest when you claim that all but
> yourself do not care about the problem and list a set of reasons
> for that that are almost all rather disparaging.
I stated clearly that this applied to four out of five
people reading my assertions. I guess that about one
in five are both interested in and capable of talking
about the roots of political differences in an
objective fashion. It *is* honest; I do *in fact* have
a poorer opinion of those who cannot engage in constructive
dialog aimed at bringing to the surface the real roots
of the "conflict of visions", or who adamantly deny that
opinions are strongly grouped (e.g. my list above).
> > We have just seen a debate break out over whether
> > or not the United States is arrogant, selfish, and
> > ruthless, and it is a *certainty* that the same old
> > arguments will be advanced on both sides, arguments
> > that the debaters have each heard many, many times.
> > (That's fine, BTW---I'm not complaining because I
> > don't have to read it if I don't want to, and the
> > debaters may have other motives, such as wishing
> > to perfect their arguments, or to merely entertain
> > themselves and the rest of us.)
>
> There is no question whatsoever that the US has often behaved in
> an arrogant, selfish and ruthless manner. There is nothing to
> debate on that score. If the record of history is not enough
> just watch and read the news.
This is typical of the stubbornness that often prevents
exploration of honest differences. You've made it quite
clear here that at least half the people contributing on
this list have views that are simply unacceptable and
are so obviously and foolishly wrong that discourse with
them is impossible (unless, I suppose, they shape up).
I for one would state that the U.S. has been exemplary
(for a world superpower, and incredibly noble for a
sole superpower). Yes, true, that's only in comparison
to say how France acted when it was Europe's only
superpower, or how Germany did, or how Russia recently
did. Or how Rome did. Or how the Aztecs did, or how
the Mongols did, or how Spain did, or how the Turks did
on and on and on... and on and on and on. BUT YOU SEE:
you've heard ALL THAT BEFORE AND IT'S MADE PRECISELY
ZERO IMPRESSION ON YOU: my views are still simply
inadmissible, right? Totally and completely blind
and stupid and wrong? Right?
> My primary motive is to get those who think what is going on
> now, especially the imminent invasion of Iraq, is OK to please,
> please reconsider before the world is plunged into a bloodpath
> highly inimical to our lives, well-being and all of our fondest
> extropian goals.
And their fondest wish is for you to wake up and
realize that Saddam... blah blah blah. Don't you
get tired of writing the same old thing over and
over, and reading the same retorts over and over?
Don't you yearn to know *why* the others keep on
persistently thinking differently from you?
> > P.S. I do admit that if one does see one's adversaries
> > as completely wicked, then, yes, this is not a fruitful
> > endeavor for one.
>
> I see the current course this administration seems bent on as
> leading to millions of lives unnecessarily lost, hundreds of
> billions if not trillions of dollars burned up in war...
> [etc. etc. etc., lapsing into the usual sort of diatribe
> as though it was going to affect someone]
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:06 MST