From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 01:42:21 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Any adult with the slightest interest in social developments
> or politics soon becomes acquainted with a most curious
> phenomenon: the almost platonic reality of the left-right
> political spectrum. As soon as you know someone's views on
> a relatively small number of issues, you can correctly infer
> their views on almost all issues. Now what exactly determines
> how someone comes to reside at a particular position on this
> spectrum, and what are the deepest differences in values that
> characterize the different views?
Actually, the above, imho, is one of the greatest fal\lacies of
our time.
>
> 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?
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 elses cares? Perhaps they just don't frame the
"problem" in quite the same way.
>
> This is because, sadly, most people consciously or not view
> their own position as "right" and all other positions as
> misguided, or ignorant, evilly motivated, uninformed, or
> even stupid. Admit it! Isn't that what you *truly* think
> of those who are always on the other side of every issue
> from you? Perhaps as few as one person in five reading
> this can truthfully deny the charge.
>
So having stated without evidence that most people don't care
about the roots of disagreements between themselves on others
you will now explain why it is that this alleged fact is so,
heh? I don't personally think anything of the kind, generally
speaking. Although occassionally I am amazed at unexamined
corners of people's minds (including my own) that pop up.
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 conciousness that hopefully evolve
over time. Most of the the power of their mind centers around
the fundamental stage they are at 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. Sometiems "green" pluristic 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.
I think you are reacting for some of that mroe integral
understanding although I'm not at all sure your wording will
help you get there.
> 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.
> One is that obviously it diminishes their own sense of superiority
> or sense of special position to recognize the symmetries between
> their own views and those of their opposite numbers. Interestingly,
> this is similar to the well-known reluctance to admit the
> possibility of extra-terrestrial life, and to the long term
> historical urge of humans wishing to have a special place in
> the universe, and their reluctance to concede that there may
> turn out to be nothing special about the Earth.
>
I doubt overall that many of us hang out long in "sense of
superiority".
> 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. Sometiems 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 sens of incredulity in the
face of what seems very much wrong and even very dangerous.
> 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.
> They believe that *power* is the only true currency, and there
> is no such thing as truth outside of one's own perspective,
That is not the only alternative to the above of course. Power
is an even emptier game than utter rationalism. Solipsism and
utter subjectivity are not the opposite of the above.
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
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 animical to our lives, wellbeing and all of our fondest
extropian goals.
> But would it be *impossible* to search (perhaps even in
> a spirit of harmony although that's not necessary) for
> the actual underlying values on which such perceptions
> are built?
>
> Is it *impossible* to unearth the unarticulated
> assumptions that underlie each position?
>
> Lee
>
> 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 unneccessarily lost, hundreds of
billions if not trillions of dollars burned up in war,
tremendous loss of freedom at home and extremely volatile and
brittle relations between the US and most of the world for a
decade or more. That is a lot of extremely horrid krap
unfolding that I will at least raise my voice about when it
stares me in the face. I must speak up to attempt to steer away
from that course even if the attempt is almost certainly doomed
to fail, even locally on this list.
Bobble up. It looks like it is going to be really nasty.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:03 MST