POLITICS and REALITY

WHISPERING INSIDE THE STORM

Writing on political issues is one of my favorite things. It may, however, be like blowing words into a gale force wind, not influencing the flow of events much at all. We free writers do not know the extent of our influence past the keyboard, except for the occasional comment as feedback.

An even greater issue is then the availability of ears and eyes to actually comprehend innocently the dot’s one connects in political commentary. Most all of us have a certain bias to our situations and philosophical inclination that we may take for granted. There are large invisible boxes to toss each of us into, as soon as someones subjective bias detector notices something is not right to their own perspective.

As in the evidence for WMD in Iraq or other connections to 9-11-01, the truth itself is not good enough for many to change pre-existing assumptions as to how the world operates or what is or is not a fact contained in history. What is is, is up to us?  I am afraid we would not even have developed language if reality or truth really was all up to us to invent.  We do act as if a bedrock or real being does function beyond all our comprehension, yet somehow, we each are a part of it.

It is likely already, that someone hearing my two references to adequate evidence and 9-11, are clicking away from this post, or thinking of what to see next, to move on to less dissonant issues. I often do this myself, as soon as, from my own subjective view, I notice what seems to be a disingenuous logical set up to jumping off into the land of conclusion, which I find inadequate to the “facts” presented. Since we all have unique intrinsic perspective, we can seemingly disagree with anyone on most anything we chose.

However, that does not effect the actual parameters of reality, except to the degree we may all be manifestations within the consciousness of God, or whatever one chooses to call this Beingness..  Then only so much separation can be made to seem real, while our illusions and confusions may indeed be included in being.  But I really have digressed…

And this is the dilemma of the political writer; that most often we are not speaking to those who might benefit from our assumptions of how dot’s connect inside the world of human relationships. We are likely singing to the choir, or else someone like me is listening and determining where all the logical holes are in those assumptions, with a “that’s not good enough” scissors cutting me right off their monitor.

APPEALING TO WHAT SENSE OF COMMON GROUND?

I often attempt to have my reasoning “feel” as logical to me as it would to some impartial observer. That is a difficult task, being that one is hardly an impartial observer oneself. What I leave out of my historical analysis may be done for unconscious reasons, which automatic pilot inclinations know that evidence would be damaging to the dot’s and lines I am drawing. We do this selective ignorance mongering from ideological perspectives that may well leave the conscious mind unaware of intrinsic bias to the assumptions we deem real.

The other ideological perspectives may well view this lack, as evidence of spurious rationalization, even conscious deception, then go on to assume what they will from it. This lack of presumed honesty in political discourse is one of the curses cast upon the political animal. We are not all identical creatures, with identical interest or backgrounds. We will naturally not view a perspective thorough the eyes in which I saw it written on this screen. But must that always be a bad thing?

MIRROR MIRROR ON THE WEB

Cable TV, and many a newspaper, enjoy the cat fighting that goes on with the apparent disdain often exhibited in the political realm. Some of us obviously enjoy being right (our assumptions) and proving how wrong someone else, or most everyone else is. Where does this kind of conflict with no intention towards resolution end? This is perhaps the great question facing the modern world, where truth, honesty and evidence are at certain angles so problematic. It comes down to a respect “thing” in the end. If the human being on the other side of the argument is not given respect to argue, no matter how wrong one knows they are, only the truth stands to lose.

If we believe in a rational universe, and not a rationalizing one, somewhere we trust or claim to trust, irreversible laws of cause and effect. Somewhere we have faith in, or think we do, have faith in an irreducible and indestructible truth, or common ground to being. If we do know this, or claim to, what can damage, in argument, that indestructible truth? Do I believe it is real, or do I only suspect my angle on it, as inadequate as that view might be, is obviously the one and only right way to view it?

WRITE AND WRONG

The problem with most political writing is that we are arguing with ignorance from a position containing its own relative ignorance. We are set up to fall into any unconscious traps that ignorance stealthily cast before knowing. We may be securely held in that net of ignorance, assuming the sides of the hole we are in is the correct world view; seems so from our own angle. Because of these apparent susceptibilities to human reason, it seems to me that many a political writer and thinker need grant their opposition much more respect and humility that ego identity absolutism ever graces.

2 thoughts on “POLITICS and REALITY

  1. It seems to me there is a simple answer to that unresolvable political paradox; where being right to our own beliefs supersedes countervailing fact. The trouble is, it stands against the will of the ego as you suggest. In limiting my awareness to a superficial definition of my own interest, I effectively excommunicate the rest of reality from my consideration. Focused on me and my own, things like resource depletion, environmental degradation, societal inequities and the rest can be off my personal space radar.

    The individual has to decide where their own interest begin and end and why. Much politics ends its range over its specific issue orientation, almost as if the rest of life is secondary, or none of my business. The left and the right have these self imposed barriers where it seems convenient to draw the lines. We seem to avoid agreeing on, or even discussing where these self boundaries begin and end.

    Abortion is a classic wedge issue, where the full breath of the consideration is aborted for absolute rightness to one cause or another. The argument becomes not about the actual reality surrounding a woman. That falls to abstract pureness, where either side can feel completely valid in their stance, while no common ground of understanding is pursued.

    While the so called pro life side can feel they stand up for God, Life and all, we come to see many ways their purity can seem manipulated to this one issue. What about the rest of life? Are not lives aborted in so many other ways, without the individual truly having a just or fair say in their own demise? There is a similar denial of consequence on the so called pro choice side. What is the consequence of making the right to abort a life the same as a right to vote? While government might do well to stay outside of ones own body, it is a kind of contradiction to not have an unborn child not have that same right. It is made too easy to ignore the implications of the “right” to abortion. Other options are not really on the table.

    Purity of belief is one thing that does not serve the changing nature of life and being around us. I cannot say there is absolutely no incidence where abortion might be necessary. I also find it quite untenable that we have a right to terminate life just because it seems inconvenient. Process is change and literally what makes life move in space and time. How can I decide my life is somehow outside of Life’s own way?

    We need to understand who is benefiting from our oppositions to one another, and why many issues will not be resolved as long as we each refuse to accept personal change, the very aspect this Life seems made of.

    One thing seems obvious but obscured at the same time; if my heart is not honestly open to contrary viewpoints, I will not understand the nature of change being asked of me by Life. Instead, I will have declared myself sovereign ruler of my static little bubble world. Likely to seek out others of like mind for comfort and reassurance of identity with its belief’s.

    In an odd way, much politics seems to be a refusal to face actual reality, and instead, create a pure and simple self obsessed view, where I cannot help but be always right. As long as humankind continues in this aversion to change, and being a conscious aspect of it, this changing world might just pass us all by. Mission Aborted.

  2. Sometimes we have to see something from a different angle to realize it’s truth. I found this in reading your question;
    “Where does this kind of conflict with no intention towards resolution end?”

    The “truths” in life are always the simplest, arent they? Quotes that I have come to love like “The only constant life is change” and “We dont see things the way they are, we see things the way WE are.”, cut through the issue and tell us that conflict with no intention towards resolution is inherent in man. “It’s more important to prove youre right, than to fix the problem”, is the fullfiller of ego, to often.

    Until we can get people to care about the issue more than their ego, then the things that can and should be changed will be done so by a small handful of individual’s, while others sit on the side lines and discuss amongst themselves who is “right.”

    Thanks once again for a thought provoking piece.

Comments are closed.