In the Polarity post Part 1 the ponderings bring dimensions to linear thinking, and led me to wonder about “differences” and disagreement.
What function is served by our unique perspectives, and how are we served as a whole by the way we share these? How do we share?
Recently, I’ve explored the paradox of seemingly disparate views and growing “group-think”. Years of changes in the way Western social structures “school” us has promoted a process of thinking that is more homogenized.
Strange to me that mohawks led to piercings, tattoos, and wild apparel…but less unique ways of creativity in basic systems of thought application - math, reading, physics, for example.
photo credit: Laura Tsabet
It’s like the foundational elements of an individual’s capacity to process information have weakened, and the shell visible to others aligns with talking points that fit a larger group…but don’t represent the core values or unique story of the individual wearing the shell.
This, I think, makes the weakened “processor” a cloudy mass of confusion between a person’s center point and their interface with the world. And without clearing some of that haze, which takes commitment to honest self-reflection and loads of work, the easy road is to accept the “logic” of outside consensus and abdicate that center point. Or more commonly, I think, tune out the subtle natural forces of one’s individuality until they become unavoidable crashing waves in our inner and outer worlds.
Here’s an excellent illustrated explanation of the dynamics by Tim Urban, posted in The Free Press substack:
I imagine most humans would agree that “disagreement” is a necessary function for us as a species - promoting expansive thinking, leading to progress as a whole.
If that is a base assumption, “disagreement is necessary for humanity”, then how can we use our innate diversity, our disagreements, to serve us better?
I think first it is important to acknowledge the truth of a what we consider a “disagreement”. Does a belief, or a viewpoint, spring from our core, or from a co-opted external source?
After paring back the scaffolding of values transmitted like childhood viruses, what are you left with? What is actually yours?
I think the bumping up against others’ beliefs is essential to shake the dirt loose, and uncover those roots.
Past times saw more engaged in respectability politics, and respectful debate on topics important to human living. Studying classical philosophers, historical movements, and shifts in worldwide information dissemination gives examples of how destructive we can be when free flow of ideas is suppressed, discussion of alternate thinking becomes “unsafe”, and the essential process of discovery is shut down.
Yet, I think the aggression inherent in disagreement is like any energy - understood to be a constant in that it cannot be created nor destroyed - and without direct communication, leading to indirect expression, often violent.
photo credit: steptogether.com.au
Maybe, as in the Part 1 post on Polarity, shifting our thinking about disagreement would help?
For me, that led to an electric-lit vision:
What if we, as individuals and a whole body of humanity, are like a massive multidimensional puzzle?
Energy flows without resistance through this “structure”, unless there are gaps, or imbalances where particular puzzle pieces are holding their form differently than their true borders - the shape needed to slip into place in the larger picture?
What if our disagreements - our unique vantage points on the world we share - are the edges that need definition, for us to work with the whole of humanity?
In that hypothetical, our “disagreements” are part of our identity, yet those ideas and beliefs held by another pose no threat to our integrity. They actually provide the framework for who we are in truth to lock in safely.
Since humans aren’t static, there were other layers to this musing that I’ll ponder in another post, but for now….
Maybe considering alternate perspectives on what “disagreement” means to us could provide newer ways forward, and the aggressive energy inherent in creativity and growth, in the birth of new ideas and their manifesting into our reality, can flow less impeded? With more direct communication of differing views, less energy building up and requiring violent release?
What do you think?
I’ll leave you with this brilliant comment on our current puzzling approach to “diversity”, from an interview with Peter Thiel in another great post by Bari Weiss in The Free Press:
You don’t have real diversity when you have a group of people who look different and think alike.
- Peter Thiel
Now, more than ever, I think We depend on each human deeply mining to discover their own core truths, and finding the grace to share with each other. We need not only humility and openness for our own growth process, but charity for the messy workings of ourselves and others. And clarity in communicating our borders, consistency in relating with those boundaries, and comfort with the entirety of forces we embody - including fear of tribal expulsion, need for “safety”, voices of dissent…and natural, necessary, creative, forceful human energy…even that which is aggression.
And, not to be passive-aggresive, frenz, but “aggression” is a loaded-bomb of goodness you will have to wait another week to read about ;)
Agree?