Hi Clare. The gap between ideologue's in our two party system has gotten so monstrously wide that trying to bridge them is mostly impossible! If our society is ever going to be close enough to bridge, it has to start with us. I too want to be a bridge like I used too. I felt like my voice was better heard when I could cross party lines to chose the candidate that aligned with my vision and ideals. It’s mind boggling how so many people have committed to a party no matter the candidate or their political views. Unfortunately, if we are going to survive as a democratic country, it starts with us! Think of it as a zipper! Connect the two sides at the lowest level and work upwards. Good luck to you and our country!!
“The price of being a minority within a minority is I will always have to explain myself.”
I feel this. And, as time passes, I have begun giving fewer fucks. I’ll say my piece. I also currently have 81 subscribers with no increase in weeks and my longest/oldest friends are from the past few years.
But what that means is higher engagement with the ones that stick around. And the ones that stick around make me feel like I >get to share< who I am and become more loving of ourselves together, rather than owing anyone any explanations.
Thank you for the wisdom, Logan! I agree, it's not always easy to remember, but it's the depth and honesty of those connections that matters even if there are few
I just wanted to let you know, I read your piece in Tangle. I am very sorry your lost your friend over political differences. You are not alone. I value your perspective. I hope you find healing from the loss of your friend.
this article helped me see that I have been at times a "Naive Realist"
Friedman, J. (2023). Post-Truth and the Epistemological Crisis. Critical Review, 35(1–2), 1–21
we live in an age of "naive realism" that has no undertanding of "How do we know what we know?" the abstract:
ABSTRACT: The polarization and charges of “post-truth” that mark contemporary politics may have its source, ultimately, in a crisis of epistemology, which is characterized by a tension between different forms of naïve realism—the view that reality appears to us directly, unmediated by interpretation.
Perhaps too schematically, those on the right tend to be first-person naïve realists in treating economic and social realities as accessible to the ordinary political participant by simplecommon sense,
while those on the left tend to be third-person naïve realists in treat-ing credentialed experts as forming a consensus—a new common sense.
In treating reality as transparent enough to be legible either to oneself or to a group of experts,both sides tend to treat disagreement as a MOTIVATIONAL problem—a problem of bad faith, motivated reasoning, perversity, and refusal to see the truth. That is not how it works. What do we need?
Seeing it as an EPISTEMIC problem caused by the possibility that each side may hold a different set of INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORKS that determines HOW and WHAT it SEES of REALITY.
Inobviating the possibility of genuine disagreement, the epistemological crisis is quitenaturally transformed into a political crisis.
Super interesting framing! I'll look into it, but that makes sense to me. We're all experiencing the world through lenses and if we fail to acknowledge that those exist it's hard to get anywhere because we're misdiagnosing how someone arrived at their conclusions.
I really did not like what he said in the middle until I read all of it. his focus is on academia. Mine is society. So his views did not include that— though academia is now controlled by my “tribe” the alternate media and religion is controlled by the right. I need the humane conservatives and humane liberals to self identify. Too many on left and right seek “POWER AND CONTROL” over the common person. That scares me. to be a naive realist is to see language as a tool/instrument. rather than a means of mutal intelligibility. I am moving back to america to found Sesame Street for Grownups. Where empathetic understand, unconditional postive regard, and congruence are the three vows I take. (thats all Carl Rogers from his books A WAY OF BEING and ON PERSONAL POWER.)
Hi Clare. The gap between ideologue's in our two party system has gotten so monstrously wide that trying to bridge them is mostly impossible! If our society is ever going to be close enough to bridge, it has to start with us. I too want to be a bridge like I used too. I felt like my voice was better heard when I could cross party lines to chose the candidate that aligned with my vision and ideals. It’s mind boggling how so many people have committed to a party no matter the candidate or their political views. Unfortunately, if we are going to survive as a democratic country, it starts with us! Think of it as a zipper! Connect the two sides at the lowest level and work upwards. Good luck to you and our country!!
“The price of being a minority within a minority is I will always have to explain myself.”
I feel this. And, as time passes, I have begun giving fewer fucks. I’ll say my piece. I also currently have 81 subscribers with no increase in weeks and my longest/oldest friends are from the past few years.
But what that means is higher engagement with the ones that stick around. And the ones that stick around make me feel like I >get to share< who I am and become more loving of ourselves together, rather than owing anyone any explanations.
Keep up the great work, Clare.
Thank you for the wisdom, Logan! I agree, it's not always easy to remember, but it's the depth and honesty of those connections that matters even if there are few
I just wanted to let you know, I read your piece in Tangle. I am very sorry your lost your friend over political differences. You are not alone. I value your perspective. I hope you find healing from the loss of your friend.
Thank you, Lisa!! I so appreciate you reading and sharing this
this article helped me see that I have been at times a "Naive Realist"
Friedman, J. (2023). Post-Truth and the Epistemological Crisis. Critical Review, 35(1–2), 1–21
we live in an age of "naive realism" that has no undertanding of "How do we know what we know?" the abstract:
ABSTRACT: The polarization and charges of “post-truth” that mark contemporary politics may have its source, ultimately, in a crisis of epistemology, which is characterized by a tension between different forms of naïve realism—the view that reality appears to us directly, unmediated by interpretation.
Perhaps too schematically, those on the right tend to be first-person naïve realists in treating economic and social realities as accessible to the ordinary political participant by simplecommon sense,
while those on the left tend to be third-person naïve realists in treat-ing credentialed experts as forming a consensus—a new common sense.
In treating reality as transparent enough to be legible either to oneself or to a group of experts,both sides tend to treat disagreement as a MOTIVATIONAL problem—a problem of bad faith, motivated reasoning, perversity, and refusal to see the truth. That is not how it works. What do we need?
Seeing it as an EPISTEMIC problem caused by the possibility that each side may hold a different set of INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORKS that determines HOW and WHAT it SEES of REALITY.
Inobviating the possibility of genuine disagreement, the epistemological crisis is quitenaturally transformed into a political crisis.
Super interesting framing! I'll look into it, but that makes sense to me. We're all experiencing the world through lenses and if we fail to acknowledge that those exist it's hard to get anywhere because we're misdiagnosing how someone arrived at their conclusions.
I really did not like what he said in the middle until I read all of it. his focus is on academia. Mine is society. So his views did not include that— though academia is now controlled by my “tribe” the alternate media and religion is controlled by the right. I need the humane conservatives and humane liberals to self identify. Too many on left and right seek “POWER AND CONTROL” over the common person. That scares me. to be a naive realist is to see language as a tool/instrument. rather than a means of mutal intelligibility. I am moving back to america to found Sesame Street for Grownups. Where empathetic understand, unconditional postive regard, and congruence are the three vows I take. (thats all Carl Rogers from his books A WAY OF BEING and ON PERSONAL POWER.)