Probably the best thing you’ve written in months, but of course I say that because it re-affirms my own cognitive biases. Have forwarded to my QAnon mother who of course will get annoyed and delete, but I feel better 😊
"Sometimes I sit outside at dusk and stop feeling anything except the steel chill of the incoming night. And then I stop existing for a little while."
I enjoyed this piece and I'm still sorting through my thoughts and feelings on it, but just wanted to mention that this passage struck me. Beautifully written.
Did some more thinking on this. I like what you have to say about meta-narratives and the despair of opposing the powerful when the powerful seem intent on not merely exercising their power, but also stopping anyone else from being allowed to speak. I think the big question you've asked is really here:
"What eventually clicked for me was that the only thing you could really influence was yourself. To renegotiate your relationship with the situation. And that while everyone was constantly looking outward for the inspiration to do something, all that did was to create a feeling of despair. The 'wrong' people eventually got their way, just as they're getting their way so much of the time now."
I'd like to inject a couple thoughts.
(*) You can influence others, but you can only influence them if you are able to listen to them, and in so doing, try to see the world from their perspective. If you do not, then you cannot possibly construct arguments that will resonate with them. And you cannot possibly learn what value they have to contribute -- and they *do* have value to contribute.
(*) Given the above, one of the most valuable things you can possible *do* is to listen and try to put yourself in the perspective of those with whom you disagree. This is the first step to gaining influence.
It probably goes without saying that *this is hard*. If you don't find it hard, then you're probably not looking at the people whose views you find most objectionable, or you're probably not really gaining access to their perspective, and you should dig further. You may still not agree with them, but you will understand why they believe what they do. 99% of the time, it's not because they are idiots or evil. Influence starts from common ground.
You're, of course, right. I struggle with the patience required, because I'm not a 'good' person. I also don't really care about influencing others. In fact, this is a feature of my thinking now - I feel less of a need to have 'impact' than I once did. It's something to do with feeling kind of non-needy & more self-contained.
If you wonder 'why does he write, then', it's because I need to get things off my chest. And I'm happy if they resonate with others, who even sometimes engage. I feel a sense of community then.
I wasn't being critical of your approach; merely wanted to point out that it's possible to exert influence, but that the way in which the typical leftish or righty thinks about influence is just wrong. I like your example about the presentation with counterarguments to brexiteers: it's the classic misunderstanding of influence.
hmm... I read this again this morning after reading it yesterday. I very much fit into this area, recovering right-wing fatalizer, and though I feel I have outgrown it - tell the truth on the internet if you read conservative takes you are almost constantly taken back to these anxieties!
But more and more it seems the "political salvation" in itself , no matter where on the ideological spectrum... seems to me to be part of the problem itself.
You seem to be going towards the same place, although finding answers in stoicism, whereas I tend to be going towards primitive christian spirituality ( corporal works of mercy - which weirdly are kinda what the technocrats have embodied on that individual conscience level)
There was a picture of a demon at the beginning, and throughout the post the idea of evil was mentioned - or our conception of evil - demonizing the other party/belief system
and the left wing, the right wing.. all of these sincere efforts ( maybe not always) to be on the side of truth and what is good.... well if we are really gonna talk and write about good and truth and evil... how are we not gonna deal with Christ's message - and I'm not saying I know the truth ( although he make the bold statement to actually BE the truth) , but it seems, if we are going to be mature thinkers, at the very least, the message should be rejected.... fuck it... and let's get on with that new conception of virtue - which might be the resurrection of stoic thinking and virtue...which I agree is very appealing, but the compassion of Christ and the hardness of Stoicism don't seem to josh completely..... or maybe not at all...
Several interesting observations there, which I appreciate and will reflect on - thanks. This 'political salvation' promised by left and right does seem to be a kind of pseudo-religious promise and that demands revisiting the *actual* religious tradition that they maybe attemp to usurp. Believing *in* politics as a sweeping fix-all (rather than the art of finding trade-offs around enduring problems) certainly seems to me too to be part of the problem. I hadn't thought of that specifically before.
Probably the best thing you’ve written in months, but of course I say that because it re-affirms my own cognitive biases. Have forwarded to my QAnon mother who of course will get annoyed and delete, but I feel better 😊
Thanks Ray. Let me know if your mum says anything
"Sometimes I sit outside at dusk and stop feeling anything except the steel chill of the incoming night. And then I stop existing for a little while."
I enjoyed this piece and I'm still sorting through my thoughts and feelings on it, but just wanted to mention that this passage struck me. Beautifully written.
Thanks!
Did some more thinking on this. I like what you have to say about meta-narratives and the despair of opposing the powerful when the powerful seem intent on not merely exercising their power, but also stopping anyone else from being allowed to speak. I think the big question you've asked is really here:
"What eventually clicked for me was that the only thing you could really influence was yourself. To renegotiate your relationship with the situation. And that while everyone was constantly looking outward for the inspiration to do something, all that did was to create a feeling of despair. The 'wrong' people eventually got their way, just as they're getting their way so much of the time now."
I'd like to inject a couple thoughts.
(*) You can influence others, but you can only influence them if you are able to listen to them, and in so doing, try to see the world from their perspective. If you do not, then you cannot possibly construct arguments that will resonate with them. And you cannot possibly learn what value they have to contribute -- and they *do* have value to contribute.
(*) Given the above, one of the most valuable things you can possible *do* is to listen and try to put yourself in the perspective of those with whom you disagree. This is the first step to gaining influence.
It probably goes without saying that *this is hard*. If you don't find it hard, then you're probably not looking at the people whose views you find most objectionable, or you're probably not really gaining access to their perspective, and you should dig further. You may still not agree with them, but you will understand why they believe what they do. 99% of the time, it's not because they are idiots or evil. Influence starts from common ground.
You're, of course, right. I struggle with the patience required, because I'm not a 'good' person. I also don't really care about influencing others. In fact, this is a feature of my thinking now - I feel less of a need to have 'impact' than I once did. It's something to do with feeling kind of non-needy & more self-contained.
If you wonder 'why does he write, then', it's because I need to get things off my chest. And I'm happy if they resonate with others, who even sometimes engage. I feel a sense of community then.
I wasn't being critical of your approach; merely wanted to point out that it's possible to exert influence, but that the way in which the typical leftish or righty thinks about influence is just wrong. I like your example about the presentation with counterarguments to brexiteers: it's the classic misunderstanding of influence.
I know! You are constructive in what you add and I always appreciate it.
hmm... I read this again this morning after reading it yesterday. I very much fit into this area, recovering right-wing fatalizer, and though I feel I have outgrown it - tell the truth on the internet if you read conservative takes you are almost constantly taken back to these anxieties!
But more and more it seems the "political salvation" in itself , no matter where on the ideological spectrum... seems to me to be part of the problem itself.
You seem to be going towards the same place, although finding answers in stoicism, whereas I tend to be going towards primitive christian spirituality ( corporal works of mercy - which weirdly are kinda what the technocrats have embodied on that individual conscience level)
There was a picture of a demon at the beginning, and throughout the post the idea of evil was mentioned - or our conception of evil - demonizing the other party/belief system
and the left wing, the right wing.. all of these sincere efforts ( maybe not always) to be on the side of truth and what is good.... well if we are really gonna talk and write about good and truth and evil... how are we not gonna deal with Christ's message - and I'm not saying I know the truth ( although he make the bold statement to actually BE the truth) , but it seems, if we are going to be mature thinkers, at the very least, the message should be rejected.... fuck it... and let's get on with that new conception of virtue - which might be the resurrection of stoic thinking and virtue...which I agree is very appealing, but the compassion of Christ and the hardness of Stoicism don't seem to josh completely..... or maybe not at all...
Several interesting observations there, which I appreciate and will reflect on - thanks. This 'political salvation' promised by left and right does seem to be a kind of pseudo-religious promise and that demands revisiting the *actual* religious tradition that they maybe attemp to usurp. Believing *in* politics as a sweeping fix-all (rather than the art of finding trade-offs around enduring problems) certainly seems to me too to be part of the problem. I hadn't thought of that specifically before.
Thanks for being here.