Oct 24, 2022·edited Oct 24, 2022Liked by Gary Sharpe
What you are describing is a pattern of behavior. This pattern is a product of a pattern of thinking. That pattern of thinking treats truth is reductive. We know something by breaking it down to its essential parts. This is called Essentialism. One definition that I found described it this way. "The essentialist perspective advocates that individuals in categories such as class, ethnicity, gender, or sex share an intrinsic quality that is verifiable through empirical methods (whether currently known or unknown). Furthermore, essentialism focuses on what individuals are, not who they are and individuals are viewed as inherently a certain way and not developing through dynamic social processes."
The procedural crisis you describe is how a reductive society operates. It is proof that empiricism was always going to be a limited perspective on society and humanity. We know this because now those in power continually cancel people who say they have proof. There is no conversation where this can be discussed. It represents an historic collapse in Western thought. This is the ultimate end point of Enlightenment thought leading to the age of science and industry.
Empiricist reductive thinking meant that we could not see the whole of something. We are not whole beings, but essentially a collection of parts. It is a mechanistic view of society and human life. This means that our agency as human beings is lost. Agency being that capacity of each of us to act on our own. To make choices. To be self-reflective. And to stand apart from some classification, like a job title, that defines us.
I'm glad you posted this. I have been thinking about this very thing for a couple of weeks. It will lead to my next series of posts on holistic systems thinking. It is important that we have these shared conversations. As one of my colleagues and I often say to one another, "another Vulcan mindmeld moment."
Oct 24, 2022·edited Oct 24, 2022Liked by Gary Sharpe
I suspect that, in the backrooms of Western governments, there's been concern that democratic systems may be failing to autocratic ones, not on idealogical grounds, but simply in terms of industrial or military output. I could certainly imagine many Western govs as seeing China in this kind of potential light. So the West has decided that, in order to compete with this potential threat, they need to roll back some democratic freedoms themselves, and use the media to weaponise the minds of as many citizens as possible. Such a decision is of course not the kind of thing you can talk about but to me it seems to fit the bill for what's going on.
Oh, yes, "However, the one area where I have seen this change most starkly over just the last couple of years, and is perhaps the most disastrous example, is when it comes to discussions about scientific questions, and amongst academics and university types."
Existential questions for academics and university manque types are so urgent, yet so painful.
I think you're spot on here, but I'd like to point out another feature I've noticed, namely that there is a common type of scientist that applies standards of humility that go so far that they are unwilling to extrapolate research findings in certain areas, but are completely credulous towards scientists in other fields that proffer wild extrapolations that are taken as gospel if aligned with the narrative. In the absence of evidence things like the precautionary principle exist for a reason, but when you're just reasoning about what is likely and not advocating for policy, extrapolation aids in understanding, if only for generating additional research questions and hypotheses.
Wonderfully written Gary. I cant help but agree completely. I think one of the key issues here though os something that you rightly mention. Principles.
I just put up flyers for a local "Listening Circle" here in my Indiana small town. I also like to call them "Small Town Peace Talks." While it seems peaceful here, there are a lot of divides, alienation, resentments, and such under the surface. Most people here are from here, belong to their church and family, and that is it - anyone who differs from their dogma is suspect or even demonized. The vax issue goes largely unsaid, but broke connections further. This has all been very painful personally, so it is a bit daunting to put on a heart-centered "non-dogmatic" talking circle. But with the grievous slaughter in the news, it is the calling I feel in these times. The healing needs to begin.
I will suggest a talking circle first round, a listening-for-the-Spirit round, and then an empathy practice round allowing a bit of cross talk, before closing with personal stretches/future intentions/gratitude. These come from various traditions I have practiced along the way. Ultimately I would like to take this on the road as a non-profit, similar to some of my mentors' NonViolent Communication gatherings, but with an emphasis on broader Truth & Reconciliation aspects. I am very inspired to restart Dominic Barter's Restorative Circles practice https://restorativejusticeontherise.org/dominic-barter-of-restorative-circles/ and to weave it all together into something I call Reconciliation Circles.
Thank you Gary for your inspiring contributions to the healing!
Grim, but good list Gary. From recent personal experience, I'd add Gish-Gallop, Bait-and-Switch, and 'too busy' to watch, read, or listen to contradictory evidence to that short list of tactics used for winning at the expense of Platonic ideals. But that list is long. A new one for me, thanks to the WHO, is 'self-empowering 'might makes right' by default, depending on the silence of resistance".
I see something different. I do not see 2 sides equally locked into their belief in their rightness. My experience, as a long-time truth sleuth, is that many people - the anti-fact people - are locked away from facts - in some nasty cement block. Other people are growing and learning. For instance, those like me have been aware of the dangers of the injections for ages, etc. Others are rigid against taking in information. In other words, I see something radically different from what you see.
What you are describing is a pattern of behavior. This pattern is a product of a pattern of thinking. That pattern of thinking treats truth is reductive. We know something by breaking it down to its essential parts. This is called Essentialism. One definition that I found described it this way. "The essentialist perspective advocates that individuals in categories such as class, ethnicity, gender, or sex share an intrinsic quality that is verifiable through empirical methods (whether currently known or unknown). Furthermore, essentialism focuses on what individuals are, not who they are and individuals are viewed as inherently a certain way and not developing through dynamic social processes."
The procedural crisis you describe is how a reductive society operates. It is proof that empiricism was always going to be a limited perspective on society and humanity. We know this because now those in power continually cancel people who say they have proof. There is no conversation where this can be discussed. It represents an historic collapse in Western thought. This is the ultimate end point of Enlightenment thought leading to the age of science and industry.
Empiricist reductive thinking meant that we could not see the whole of something. We are not whole beings, but essentially a collection of parts. It is a mechanistic view of society and human life. This means that our agency as human beings is lost. Agency being that capacity of each of us to act on our own. To make choices. To be self-reflective. And to stand apart from some classification, like a job title, that defines us.
I'm glad you posted this. I have been thinking about this very thing for a couple of weeks. It will lead to my next series of posts on holistic systems thinking. It is important that we have these shared conversations. As one of my colleagues and I often say to one another, "another Vulcan mindmeld moment."
I suspect that, in the backrooms of Western governments, there's been concern that democratic systems may be failing to autocratic ones, not on idealogical grounds, but simply in terms of industrial or military output. I could certainly imagine many Western govs as seeing China in this kind of potential light. So the West has decided that, in order to compete with this potential threat, they need to roll back some democratic freedoms themselves, and use the media to weaponise the minds of as many citizens as possible. Such a decision is of course not the kind of thing you can talk about but to me it seems to fit the bill for what's going on.
What passes for true understanding, i.e. standing underneath, of issues facing our times is lamentable to say the least.
Thank you!
Oh, yes, "However, the one area where I have seen this change most starkly over just the last couple of years, and is perhaps the most disastrous example, is when it comes to discussions about scientific questions, and amongst academics and university types."
Existential questions for academics and university manque types are so urgent, yet so painful.
"Our" culture is not our culture. It is an anti-us culture - anti-awake anti-thinking people.
I think you're spot on here, but I'd like to point out another feature I've noticed, namely that there is a common type of scientist that applies standards of humility that go so far that they are unwilling to extrapolate research findings in certain areas, but are completely credulous towards scientists in other fields that proffer wild extrapolations that are taken as gospel if aligned with the narrative. In the absence of evidence things like the precautionary principle exist for a reason, but when you're just reasoning about what is likely and not advocating for policy, extrapolation aids in understanding, if only for generating additional research questions and hypotheses.
Wonderfully written Gary. I cant help but agree completely. I think one of the key issues here though os something that you rightly mention. Principles.
I love this analogy. Very telling and accurate.
Gary do you ever read Matt Taibi's Su stack or Glenn Greenwald's work? I think Yu would find both refreshing.
I loved your last paragraph in particular, Gary. Hear, hear! as the judges would say ;-)
Thank you for another wonderful post Gary.
I just put up flyers for a local "Listening Circle" here in my Indiana small town. I also like to call them "Small Town Peace Talks." While it seems peaceful here, there are a lot of divides, alienation, resentments, and such under the surface. Most people here are from here, belong to their church and family, and that is it - anyone who differs from their dogma is suspect or even demonized. The vax issue goes largely unsaid, but broke connections further. This has all been very painful personally, so it is a bit daunting to put on a heart-centered "non-dogmatic" talking circle. But with the grievous slaughter in the news, it is the calling I feel in these times. The healing needs to begin.
I will suggest a talking circle first round, a listening-for-the-Spirit round, and then an empathy practice round allowing a bit of cross talk, before closing with personal stretches/future intentions/gratitude. These come from various traditions I have practiced along the way. Ultimately I would like to take this on the road as a non-profit, similar to some of my mentors' NonViolent Communication gatherings, but with an emphasis on broader Truth & Reconciliation aspects. I am very inspired to restart Dominic Barter's Restorative Circles practice https://restorativejusticeontherise.org/dominic-barter-of-restorative-circles/ and to weave it all together into something I call Reconciliation Circles.
Thank you Gary for your inspiring contributions to the healing!
Loved this the first time. So well said.
Grim, but good list Gary. From recent personal experience, I'd add Gish-Gallop, Bait-and-Switch, and 'too busy' to watch, read, or listen to contradictory evidence to that short list of tactics used for winning at the expense of Platonic ideals. But that list is long. A new one for me, thanks to the WHO, is 'self-empowering 'might makes right' by default, depending on the silence of resistance".
Add that people love to be baffled by bullshit speak like medical lingo or legalese or the garbage that economics experts babble.
We need a reform of the system to speak plain English, not psedo-intellectual tongues.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/
I see something different. I do not see 2 sides equally locked into their belief in their rightness. My experience, as a long-time truth sleuth, is that many people - the anti-fact people - are locked away from facts - in some nasty cement block. Other people are growing and learning. For instance, those like me have been aware of the dangers of the injections for ages, etc. Others are rigid against taking in information. In other words, I see something radically different from what you see.