The Difficulties of Discourse

This article originally appeared on Disinfo.com

The futility of political discourse seems all-too-evident in America, whether at the highest levels of power concerning the nonexistent ‘fiscal cliff’ or the debt ceiling, or around the family reunion dinner table concerning guns and health care. Both ‘sides’ are guilty of pseudoscientific claims, misrepresenting the opposition, sowing division with unnecessary ‘othering’, and usually no real clue as to where they actually stand on the issues or why they stand there at all.

Authors like Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell, and Chris Mooney and claim to have found the secrets behind flawed political brains, usually on the opposite ‘side’ than their own. Many studies and online polls posit to have found the mechanisms by which liberals and conservatives operate; liberals are smarter,conservatives are happier, liberals stereotype more, conservatives bow to authority more. While many of these trends can and do show up again and again, it ignores the diversity within and without party lines, the cognitive dissonance along the ideological spectrum, and the subtler reckonings of individual issue orientation. It defies capitulation, conciliation, and compromise. The sweeping generalizations that each ‘side’ usually eschews concerning class, race, religion, gender and sexuality do not seem to apply when considering others in the political landscape.

As Peter Lawler discusses in a recent BigThink post, there is actually a very wide diversity of conservative opinion, some with more depth than others. If we understand the common history, traditions, populist underpinnings and umbrella themes of even widely disparate worldviews, we can begin to work together towards reasonable approaches and solutions to society’s ills.

What’s the big difference between American conservatives and leftist nationalists?  They have different views on how much big government can remedy the excesses of big business.  Another difference concerns their view of the goodness and enduring viability of local institutions and traditional morality.  They actually tend to agree that Marx’s description of capitalism as reducing our freedom to “nothing left to lose” is largely true.  They differ a lot on the goodness and efficacy of some socialist antidote.  From a socialist view, the [The Front Porch Republic] are agrarian reactionaries.  From a Porcher view, the Marxists are irresponsibly “Gnostic” utopians.

Clearly, generalizations and sterotyping are an impediment to progress on either “side”. Even this false dichotomy of language (a relic of the oligarchy’s division tactics and oversimplified media portrayal), contributes to the unhealthy ‘othering‘ that ultimately serves to dehumanize one’s debate opponent. If the other side wants to murder unborn babies, then they are inhuman monsters. If the other side allows people of color to live with poverty and police brutality, then they are heartless misanthropists.

Because, just as with any intellectual pursuit that involves reason, logic, and candor, striving for thorough understanding is hard. It would be much simpler to only intake the sources that validate our reactionary conservatism, religious zealotry, neoconservative militancy, wall street greed and austerity, party cheerleading, progressive utopia, new age psycho-babble, left-wing anarchism, conspiracy theory, or UFO dreamland.

Party affiliation can be deceptive, as can positioning oneself along the political spectrum, rife with overgeneralizations and false associations. Although it’s also inaccurate to outright deny existing on the spectrum at all; the truth lies somewhere in the middle. On issues, you exist more on a web, an amalgam of strands as varied as the visible spectrum of light (and even the invisible, if our mixed metaphor allows for our hidden biases and subconscious belief systems). Taken as a mean, however, it is fair to place yourself somewhere, at least initially for comparison.

So does a progressive have more in common with an anarchist or socialist than a neocon? Do a Democrat and a Republican each have more in common with a centrist or moderate than the radical extremists in their own parties? Do the moderates of each ‘side’ have more they can agree on than the loud and oversampled minority flanking their ranks?

Talking Points Memo highlighted the efforts of a small, but responsible, group of conservatives who are “pro-same-sex marriage, pro-choice, pro-tax Republican activists.” They may be on the rise, as the Tea Partiers whoenergized frenzied the base resulted in embarassing media coverage, abominable policy stances, a fractured party and a disastrous election. The cry to distance themselves may be ‘Everything in Moderation!’, as we all realize that those social issues are always going to be nagging ethical arguments nuanced between us, but that the majority of Americans are actively under attack by unprincipled predators.

Most people honestly believe their delusions and logical fallacies. They came by them honestly. It will only take the incessant jackhammering of facts to break them free. Whether they believe that there is a massive Kenyan conspiracy or that the mushrooms can talk to us, they are not crazy nor liars. The endeavor of discourse, be it personable, in the media, or the national conversation, should aim to correct misconceptions, preconceived notions, and mistakes. We are not concerned with intellectually dishonest actors here. Do not lower yourself into debate with manipulators and charlatans who are mostly concerned with power and greed. They are not usually themselves radicals or revolutionaries, unless they are using and steering such a group for their own self-interests. As a rational, reasonable debater, you will find your considerable efforts at chipping away the hard exterior of an entrenched acolyte to be far easier than dealing with an unremitting fraud. You can pull the former closer to a more moderate position with enough time and work. After all, they believe themselves pursuant to the truth; they have just fallen down a corridor of errors in their search. A liar has no such allegiance.

It is true that what is ‘moderate’ and ‘centrist’ changes over time. This is not a post-modernist statement endorsing relative morality or truth. It is evident that our national dialogue, and the pandering rhetoric of our elected demogogues, swings over time. There is nothing innate in it that demands it become more progressive or reactionary over time. Other trends such as changing demographics, current events, media, law, those in power gaming the system, and technological transparency help define what the New Normal is. We all contribute to it. We are all in a constant tug-of-war game.

It may be the case that in the grand scheme of the social contract and evolution, we are hardwired by default for authoritarianism, and to conserve the status quo. Think of gene preservation and proliferation and likewise other outlier mutations. But just because something is the popular consensus (logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum) or rules by our leaders (logical fallacy: argument from authority) doesn’t make it right. Likewise, just because something is novel or progressive (logical fallacy: appeal to novelty) doesn’t make it right. It is right because it is right. No, evidence and a factual revelation of how reality works should govern our beliefs and ideology, not the other way around.

We strive as civilized animals for societal progress; to protect the unprotected, to feed the hungry, to clothe the cold, to shelter the homeless, to defend the defenseless. Members in every camp can be reached who feel a sense of justice, fairness, equaility, and civil liberty as part of our American tradition and values. Only those actively working against a righteous human condition need be discounted from the discourse (unfortunately, they are often given center stage, the sensationalist media spotlight, a louder voice within their respective parties than the rest).

And there are a variety of radicals in every camp as well; neoconservatives, tea party conservatives, anarchists, corporatists, new agers, creationists, paleoconservatives, anarchoconservatives, tax protestors, ecoterrorists, corpofascists… Their numbers do not represent the larger percentage of each group (though on specific beliefs, biases and issues, there are predispositions from one group to another). That’s not to say that somebody with some crazy ideas can’t be right every once in a blue moon (see: Alex Jones or Terence McKenna), or that their outsider theories may not hold a kernal of interesting truth. A broken clock is right twice a day, and a logically fallacious argument can still happen to be right coincidentally.

Of course, given two theories, one should not simply report on both and say the middle ground is accurate. This is what has allowed climate change denialists to voice their ‘relative truth’ to an uncritical and overly open-minded media in defiance of the overwhelming and reliably tested scientific consensus (not to be confused with popular consensus or sentiment). The right has its fair share of creationist loonies and neoliberal acolytes. And the left has plenty of crystal-worshipping, anti-vaxxer, alternative cancer cure morons as well. It seems too silly to argue which unsubstantiated claims are more damaging to scientific advancement and public policy. We all have our false dogmas, and they all damage us all.

Proposed or theoretical truths are subject to analysis, and should be eviscerated by criticism, replicated by study after study, and broken down into underlying mechanistic principles. Only after these theories hold up (be they scientific, economic, legal or political), only then should they be added to ‘The Canon.’ The Canon, despite its strict title, is ever changing, ever flowing with both the passage of time, new discoveries and contemporary understanding.

If the austerians believe that we should continue to empower the rich (“the engines of the economy”) at the expense of the poor and middle classes, then theirs should not be the default prevailing Beltway wisdom. The burden of proof is on their economic religious dogma to bear that out, especially considering how disastrous the practiced results of just such strategies have been worldwide. If any policy-maker or pundit honestly believes the inane bullshit that comes out of their pieholes, they should be exposed to harsh skepticism. They may be honestly deceived (or self-deluded), or they may themselves be revealed as a deceiver.

The onus is on all of us to research understand the arguments we are making. Just as it is inappropriate to attack Chris Christie based on his weight (logical fallacy: ad hominem), bear the responsibility of understanding a religion before criticizing its adherents, whether fundamentalist Christian, zionist Jew or radical Muslim. Explore the finer points of your debate opponent’s political philosophy by forcing them to delve into their deepest motivations, cited sources, and logical mechanisms. Who knows? You might alter your stance a bit as well.

Challenge entrenched and unfounded belief systems, especially your own. Do so with a relentless fervor, sincerely try to falsify yourself and above all be rational, be reasonable! Learn the rules of argument and logical fallacies so that you can identify when they are employed against you, by either frauds or self-deluded. Turn the incisiveSocratic Method against all claims, but do so patiently and peaceably. Make it known when you are only playing Devil’s Advocate for the sake of comprehension. Question relentlessly and mercilessly, but also earnestly and nonjudgementally. This will force someone to defend themselves not from your close-mindedness, but from critical-thinking and logic itself. It may reduce them to tears. It may change minds. It might just change the world.

Illegal Speculation

The illicit affairs of an elusive elite continue, and nightly we struggle and strive to survive against them. What will it be that saves us? Elections? Economic reasonableness? A renewed Fourth Estate? Scientific rationality? The burgeoning religion of technology? Revolution in the streets? Or perhaps simply… ROCK.

PLAYLIST
In The Hall Of The Mountain King – Robert Wells
When the Levee Breaks – Led Zeppelin
Shadows Of – Gong
Muffin Man – Frank Zappa & the The Mothers with Captain Beefheart
Long Distance Runaround – Yes
Crystal Ball – Styx
Third Stone From The Sun – Dick Dale
Jimi And Eddie (Purple Haze/Green Acres) – Pinkard & Bowden
Manic Depression – Jeff Beck & Seal
Children Of The Night – Hysear Don Walker
Song Of The Black Lizard – Pink Martini
Where The Blues Begins – Buddy Guy with Carlos Santana
Oh Well – Kenny Wayne Shepherd Band
Rawalpindi Blues – Carla Bley
(Don’t Fear) The Reaper (Bonus Track) – Blue Öyster Cult
Levon – Elton John
Backs Turned Looking Down The Path – Warren Zevon
Fanfare for the Common Man – Emerson, Lake & Palmer
Lucky Man – Emerson, Lake & Palmer
(Jack Kerouac) On The Road – Tom Waits & Primus
Hand Of Doom – Black Sabbath
Barbary – Sir Richard Bishop
A Day In The Life – Sting

Evolution not eradication!

I think I believe the political things I do now due to critical thinking and reading about science.

Reading about science will make you a humanist, as you can deeply bathe alone in the beauty of the vastness of discovery in all that exists, and possess empathy for each and every other living human’s worst trials and tribulations.

Reading about science will make you an environmentalist, both as a survival mechanism for our species, and from an appreciation in the appropriately evolved brain regions of the vision of light wave-particles representing a fragile but physical ecosystem.

Reading about science will make you a progressive, recognizing the routine obstacles and opportune advancements available to the flourishing young species, in an optimistic attempt to evolve into something greater.

Reading about science will make you pro-LGBTQ rights, when you begin to understand that human sexuality (as no different than all other observed species on the planet) is a spectrum of varying degrees of brain states and natural physiology.

There are things, however, for which I seemingly fight against the science. Large proportions of our numbers prefer to stay the course, observe the status quo, reap the benefits of our exploitation, and feed.

I believe in liberty. I believe in freedom. I believe in the individual rights of every variety up to but not including those that affect the individual rights of others. If you do infringe on the civil rights of another (as a rapist or murderer or thief or kidnapper or corporate plunderer or embezzler or bribe-accepting crooked policy-maker), then you should be given the fairest trial imaginable and if still found guilty, be punished in accordance to the pain or suffering of the offended individual, and no more. The only exception to this is in cases where the offender represents a future threat, in which case the individual should simply be sequestered from society. The purpose of government is a facilitation of services, regulations, insurances and social contracts that are agreed upon by the members of that society. The purpose of government is not control, it is arbitration. The system of laws and penalties are the results of findings in legal precedent in deciding what benefits our species and its environment best.

With creative thought and personal liberties threatened by corporate fraud, legalized systems of corruption, political bribery, systemized oppression, censorship, violations of privacy, involuntary compulsion to self-testify, indefinite detainment, racial profiling and discrimination, indoctrinated economic inequities, endangerment by unnecessary yet catastrophic war, and even sanctioned assassination, it is difficult to imagine a flourishing of the spontaneous, imaginative, inventive, adaptable, risk-taking, persistently change-making mutants attempting to evolve our species. We call them geniuses because they’re only incrementally affecting the gene pool towards a new classification, but they’re there.

The needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few (Winston Churchill, so I’m told, and not Mr. Spock), and when we allow the sapenice to be put back in Sapens, many of these questions seem so very simple and obvious. Especially with the realization that our own government is causing so much of it. Stop. Just stop. Don’t even look back. Stop proliferating violence and military entanglements around the world. Stop oppressing the underprivileged and underserved. Stop not only ignoring the crimes of a certain class, but routinely bailing them out at the expense of others. Stop infringing on the rights of the people that make up your country, both in word and in deed. Stop destroying the ecosystem we inhabit, if we intend to continue living here for a while longer. Put the brakes on. Freeze. Halt. Stop.

No, I’m not a civil libertarian because I’m a good member of the species, simply eating away in the ways we are told best suit our present state. I am a civil libertarian because I believe in the mutants. I believe that the outliers, given the freedom for growth, will make us all incrementally better, and not just greater.

But perhaps we needs to follow a natural progression of Homo Sapiens, Homo Dominus, Homo Maximus, Homo Awesomus, and finally Homo Hubris.

 

Being for the Benefit of Mr. ____

There are (hay) 6.93 billion people on the planet, how many of them can you say you have known? Does your facebook friend count break 300? 1,000? Combine it with your old myspace or friendster and discount the duplicates. Your high school yearbook. Consider all the names you heard on the announcements in high school that might still pop up in your memory from time to time. Whether you live in the city or country, but especially if you work in retail, food or any other customer service industry, consider for a moment the number of beings you have personally interacted with. Even on vacation in distant lands at each stage of your life cycle (not to be confused with light cycle). What could that number possibly be? 10,000? Ridiculously low. 50,000? 1,000,000? 80,000,000? How many have you met, conversed briefly, irrevocably altered the course of their life in some minuscule way, or simply seen in a crowd? How many other humans in your lifetime will you come into contact with?

And yet, if we were to include all the imaginary, supposed, or fictional people whom we are aware of, that number would inflate, mayhaps even double (?!)

Imaginary peoples are not just for children and paranoiacs, though these are the clearest examples of actual interaction and acting for the benefit of invisible men. Actors and writers create imaginary people every day, and in fact you may know more about the personal habits, secret origins, likes and dislikes, relationship histories, etc. of these figures than many of your close-ish acquaintances, and certainly more than those casual encounters (not to be confused with the until-recently seedy portion of craigslist). We actually feel deep emotion for these imaginary characters.

People fantasize about their perfect mate(s), though there are millions of capable, willing, and virile possibilities that may be foolishly passed over for not being this ridiculously idealized imaginary one(s). How about the idealized person you ascribe to an actual person, only to realize later that they do not measure up. Do the two different versions count as two different beings in the compartmentalized recesses of your memory?

I cannot even count the number of people I have met in dreamtime who I never have or will meet in pathetic waking life. Beautiful women, disturbing monstrosities, and heroic allies, all of them distinct and memorable, all of them thoroughly nonexistent.

Children believe in Santa Claus, leaving food for him and awaiting with fervent glee his annual arrival, something that parents actively encourage, though fully aware of the con.

And Ockham’s Razor be damned, all things being equal, I much prefer to live in a world with Bigfoot than without.

And what about the impersonal people we are aware definitely exist, but may as well be invisible for all we know? The smoke-and-mirror show that surrounds us when we hear unknown neighbors arguing, a man clear his throat down on the street, the familiar jingle of keys in the door as we inquisitively attempt to guess their owner? You know about the people in your town, your state, your nation, your world. Many of them appear on television, senators, comedians, lawyers, used car salesmen, news anchors, local characters. This is but a fraction of the inhabitants of the vast heavenly sphere we call our home. Our ‘neighbors’ include the Koreans, the Malaysians, the Irish, the Tasmanians, and sometimes even the Dutch. But aside from those very few you may have run into, unless you have been to all of those places they are strangers to you, no different than the fictional inhabitants of Oz, Cimmeria, Middle Earth, or Ooo, any of which you may know more about. We take it on faith that the Japanese exist, much the same way that a child takes it on faith that Santa exists, or the Christian supposes Jesus. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong?

And HOW real are some of these people anyway? I refer, of course, to Matthew Lesko. I myself have constructed quite a mix of real and fictional personal history, intermingled on the internet for any curious onlooker to attempt parsing.

And with this newfangled inner nets (not to be confused with inner tubes), faceless masses no longer simply ride the same bus as you, they watch the same videos you do, violently argue with you, like your comments, have mutual friends, check in at the same places, and tweet about the same revolutions. Surely they must all exist, this is no Truman Show lie. But the anonymity that protects them also alienates them not only from physical human connection with you, but also in some small way from the conceptual acceptance in your mind that they are indeed physical beings. Can there be any doubt? But what if you are talking to a bot or mailer-dæmon? Who has the time to administer a Turing test to each and every digital invisible person you come across? Also, its socially gauche!

As I said, we do things for the benefit of these invisible peeps. We knock on a bathroom door for the potential invisible person that may be inside, lest we find ourselves in a temporary mildly embarrassing situation (not everyone does this, those of us on the receiving end sometime disastrously discover). Writers not only create fictional people, (and sometimes multiple continuities of them), but write for an audience of imaginary people they may never see, who are enjoying the exploits of their fictional heroes, often without ever knowing or acknowledging the actual writer’s name or efforts.

I wonder (aloud in case it matters) if anyone will ever read this blog post. Or if when I look back at the number of page views, if perhaps they all aren’t just myself looking back at them wondering.

With so many people on the planet and growing, how can our overwhelmed and overworked minds manage to keep track of so many non-persons? Why do we do it? Would you bother to stop if you found out how?