Nothing is more lacking today than understanding the
position of those with whom we disagree. And there is one major obstacle to
doing so. Many wish for simple, two dimensional solutions to complex
multivariate problems. Few are willing to subject their own reasoning to the scrutiny
of rigorous argument to examine its weaknesses and flaws, and fewer still wish to
understand their opponent’s argument. The result of this should be obvious but unfortunately,
I believe I must point it out. It makes debating impossible! The root of the problem
lies partly in the “is versus ought” question. “What is” has NOTHING to do with
“what ought” to be. Empirical reality does not care about your feelings. This
applies equally to all who have skin in the game, whether they are of the so
called left, centre or right on the political spectrum. A spectrum which in my
mind has little utility for two reasons; it divides people into categories
which serves to end discourse rather than encourage it and the left versus
right divide is overly and dangerously simplistic. We cannot understand complexities
unless we are able to discuss them. Which is why postmodernists are working
overtime to shut down debate and freedom of speech. Since they are what I might
define as my natural opposition I am not surprised. They are angry with anyone who
like me wishes to raise the level of public discourse. That stated what truly frustrates
me are those who claim to identify with me who are completely unwilling to
think rationally and debate me without using ad hominem arguments and logical fallacies.
I will develop this problem shortly since it is something the so called right
had best correct if it intends to make itself heard by those who are not of the
right.
Postmodernism has successfully worked its magic. In this age
we are infected (for there is no better term) with the notion that everything
is relative. You have your own reality and I have mine. And the thing which
most often defines a postmodernist reality is what they believe “ought to be”.
This is the reason so many vegans and vegetarians are of the left. They ignore
the fact that as a species we evolved as hunter gatherers with canine teeth.
They also ignore the fact that we grew a brain which allowed us to finally
become self aware because we eat meat. These facts offend their notion of what
ought to be. Perhaps they also have never spent time in the out of doors to learn
about nature. We live in a world of predator versus prey. No animal in the wild
succumbs to death by old age unless its at the very apex of the food chain and
even then, rarely. Most die miserably of starvation, disease or being eaten.
That is reality. It is a fact that cares nothing for your feelings. Human
biology was shaped by this reality which, since it is millions of years in the making,
IS NOT SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED. The relativism inherent to postmodern doctrine
goes as deep as claiming that the nature of human sexuality is not defined by X
and Y chromosomes at the MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. Being a woman or a man is merely
a social construct. Yet, in Scandinavia, which is the home of the most radical
forms of postmodern thought, where they have done the most to remove all
obstacles for men and women to enter STEM versus the Humanities the difference
in choices between men and women maximized not minimized! This is the reason it
is necessary for them to have such enormous and intrusive state mechanisms to
sustain unnatural systems by fiat and force. It also the reason debate
is eschewed since if facts were brought to bear, those facts might reveal the weaknesses
in their postmodern ideology. Scandinavia is rife with cognitive dissonance therefore. Watch
this amusing clip I have posted about the last Swedish election; https://www.facebook.com/TaetPaaSandheden/videos/197182687835485/UzpfSTkwNDc5NTUyMDoxMDE2MTA1MTAxODMzMDUyMQ/
Discussing the unintegrated psyche is the reason for blog. Consider why anima possession has become a societal problem. I
quote from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-guest-room/201802/jordan-peterson-knows-what-you-re-thinking
“AB: So what do you think of our society, with spirits quite
literally afoot – I think you mean that the psyche is a real entity, in and of
itself, that it’s not just the consequence of neurons, and that it can’t just
be described at a physiochemical level.
JP: Even if it can be described at a physiochemical level,
our understanding of what “physiochemical” means will transform as we get more
sophisticated in our attempts to understand consciousness. Even if it is an
entirely reducible phenomena, ideas still inhabit us like personalities, and
they inhabit us as a collective like personalities as well. You can think of
the entire Internet as a place where ideas embodied in cyberspace are having a
war, and it’s not much different than the war of Gods in heaven, which has been
taking place since there’s been human beings. If you think of individuals as
neurons in a web, you can think of Gods as entities that inhabit that web.
They’re embodied ideas that persist across long periods of time, and they do go
to war; that’s how polytheism turns into monotheism across time. Sometimes these
wars are real, they aren’t just conceptual; people actually die to determine
which God is going to rule. So, there’s a hyperspace consisting of networked
minds in which these archetypal ideas exist, at the same time that they exist
in each person. You’re a mirror of the broader social reality. You’re a node in
it, but you’re a mirror of it as well.”
People who are possessed with an ideology are not wholly integrated
human beings rather they are anima possessed. They are unable to see anything outside of their
own perspective. That is why they will vilify any and all who hold contrary opinions
to that of their own. When you attempt to debate with them, they do not see you as an individual,
but rather who they think you are based on their preconceptions, biases and most of all your group identity. This
is the result of anima possession. At the same time, when you listen to their position, there is little need for them at all. All one needs to understand
them is to understand the ideology which possesses them. Run that through
your head and you will instantly have the answer to every multivariate complex
problem with which we are confronted. As Justin Trudeau just stated in a news conference,
we cannot develop pipelines because the work force would employ a disproportionate
number of men. A reasonable person would only concern themselves with hiring
the most qualified however postmodern idealists have replaced what is with
what should be (in their minds). In all of this the sovereign individual has lost out to their collective consciousness. Which is why this ideology resonates
with the collectivist left who loath individuality.
But if sharing the same brain isn’t your bag, I suggest a solution.
Develop your own ability to defend your line of reasoning by first examining it
thoroughly for flaws and weaknesses. This can only be achieved through careful
study, a lot of reading, and by listening critically to others without using ad
hominem arguments. Study philosophy and psychology sufficiently to understand
at least something about those who do not share your views. For those of you
who were taught to debate, please remember that in order to defend your position
you must also be able to defend your opponent’s position in an argument. Now
here is where I return to my previous assertion regarding the so called right.
Few of you have any notion whatsoever of how to develop a reasoned argument.
In this you are every bit as guilty and more so as the radical postmodern left
because you should know better! You often aren't really listening, nor carefully
weighing what others are asserting. Worse, simply because someone is on your political
team you assume that they are on your side. Politics is a corrupting business. And
I don’t care what party you support or what the ideology is to which you may lay
claim. If you think simply because someone is a member of your ingroup that
they are your friend and ally you are both anima possessed and hopelessly naïve!
Please pain me less with your low resolution, two dimensional arguments. Many
who should be carrying the torch for reasoned discourse are no better than the postmodern
leftists whom they claim to loath.
