Not long ago I promised to write about strategies that facilitate independent thinking. The first method is almost too obvious, yet we do not use it enough. Can you count beyond two? Good. In that case, we can leave the dilemma of choosing between the two options presented in the media. The story is usually about the struggle between the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’. Netanyahu being a monster, however, does not make Hamas the good guy, and vice versa. Just because we don't like Hitler doesn't mean we have to embrace Stalin. Many conflicting parties evolve to be mirror images of each other.
Source: jacqueline macou, Pixabay
Most of us possess the mathematical ability for this maneuver, yet time and again we fall into the trap of partisanship. If we don't like the present Main Empire, we tend to think that the Venezuelan government must be good. After all, it defies the US of A and embraces the poor, right? Until we meet a real Venezuelan who paints a very different picture of what’s actually going on there. Another illusion shattered.
It all seems to go back to our tribal nature. My people or strangers? Friend or foe? Our team or the opponents? Which side do I take? When it finally strikes someone that the mainstream news channels have long ago stopped being news and are plain propaganda, a common reaction is to switch to the other side. Now your aren’t watching Western tales but Russian ones. It all comes down to the completely natural human instinct to be part of a group. Someone has to be good. Right?
But of course! Here we are, for example. Goodness, among other things, entails seeing the correct picture. Instead of becoming a supporter of one of the bogeymen. The bogeymen are not born as such, of course, they got damaged through trauma, and it is our job to somehow heal them, but it’s not done by becoming their follower and doing their bidding. Even in ‘primitive’ human societies, tribes, there have been dangerous deviants, and the way to deal with them was to unite against them. Those who would not change were driven out; in the wild, this meant perishing.
Most people I personally know don't like politics. I suspect it's because of the proliferation of bogeymen. People instinctively sense that there is no really good choice. The current political and economic system favors those that can superbly conceal their humanism. Normal people find it hard to get in a position of real power, and if they do, they usually get ejected quickly. Yet every four years there is a big hullaballoo when you can decide whether to vote for Joe Trump or Donald Biden. “Well, of the two, I much rather...”, people say, puffing up their chest. Cheering for our vampire successfully distracts us from actions that could actually make a difference.
One big pseudo-choice in politics is left wing or right wing parties. It might be time to realize that this distinction has disappeared. In Hungary, state-owned companies were sold off by parties calling themselves left-wing and renationalized by those calling themselves right-wing. Exactly opposite from what is written in the book, but that's just a detail. Giant corporations have long ago realized that it makes no difference what a group proclaims, the only thing that matters is whose money is used to gain power. You buy all parties, problem solved. Путин is supposed to have said, “The opposition is very important! That's why we created it!” This quote may even be made up, or not originate with Vladimir, but it does point out an important thing.
Source: Nachristos, Unsplash
Or perhaps more than one. It's not just that apparent opponents can very well be controlled by the same unseen hand, or that they might have made a pact a long time ago and only make a show for us. There is also the question of whether we see the world as a perpetual struggle between opposing polarities. Some possible approaches to mending polarities within us have been discussed recently. Camps can form around any issue. Vaccine Nazis versus virus deniers. Black bashers versus police haters. Internationalists versus nationalists. Pro-choice militants versus murderous pro-lifers. When the possibilities of the world are lumped into two piles, and we have only these two to choose from, finer distinctions disappear. In the parliaments of many countries ‘packages’ are put to vote. This way repugnant laws can be passed by latching them on to some important issue that everyone wants done.
But then who are the good people that we can join? Well... There are bound to be some here and there, even in big politics. But rather than looking for good and bad sides, I think it's better looking at specific issues. I have studied the situation in Syria quite extensively, for example, and it seems to me that if Путин hadn’t sent troops to that country in 2015, the state would have disintegrated as in Libya. That means that armed gangs would be running amok in Damascus, and slaves would be haggled over in an open air slave market. I think the current situation is significantly better than that, but it does not mean that Al Assad is a democratic president or that Paks II. (new nuclear reactors built by Russia in Hungary) is a good idea.
There is a lot wrong with the current Main Empire and its culture (just like with many lesser empires and wannabees). Perhaps that is why we find interesting thinkers in it who are building better mental strategies. For example, here is a neutral viewpoint in which you are not committed to either side. You keep an equal distance from both and observe their actions. You can even do it when you are one of the parties. You step out of yourself leaving your feelings there and observe the situation from the outside. (Initially, it helps to actually physically step out.) From this position you notice quite different things and you can assess the situation more calmly.
Illustration of Rontó Lili from the book Gyógyító szavak (Healing Words). From left to right: own position, observer, position of the other person.
It’s a good idea to then return to your body, because getting stuck in observer position is like living on winter greenhouse plastic tomatoes. That’s what happened to ‘science’, where a curious idea has somehow become dominant: Universal laws can only be deduced from a completely sterile, external, ‘objective’ perspective. The emotions that make up the greater part of our being have no place in making meaning. This notion is probably more of an obstacle to a deeper understanding of the world. In human conflict situations, however, I think it is useful to apply the neutral observer position more often. From the outside you can see connections better, you can notice what reaction an action of one side triggers in the other. What are legitimate concerns on one side? How about the other side?
From the observer position you can then more easily enter into the feelings of the other side. If I am him or her or them, what’s important to me? With a person it’s as if you were entering their body, feeling their emotions and seeing yourself from their perspective. What does the me out there look like from here? It can be a pleasantly sobering experience, like a bucket of cold water thrown at you in the summer. Anglo-Saxons, especially Americans, are very bad at this. (Perhaps that's why they have developed these techniques.) They don't understand where the Russians are coming from, they don't understand where the Chinese are coming from, and they make mistake after mistake. The Russians even have a word for it: недоговороспособны. Non-agreement-capable.
Does that mean that the Russians are right?
Hell, no. That's precisely what we're talking about. No one is universally right, there are only different perspectives, and we have to process all of the important ones if we want to get results. In most conflicts there are oppressed groups (often trampled on by both fighting parties) needing our help. And it is precisely some balanced thinking that can give them relief, together with lasting peace and stability for everyone. Clear perceptual positions can achieve a lot of things, especially if you adopt them as a natural part of you. People blinded by extremist ideas are generally stuck in a single position.
Source: Tomas Tuma, Unsplash
The ‘good or bad’ equation can lead to ugly misunderstandings. But we can also think in pretty ways. What can we do to ensure that each side gets the security or other profound experience it really seeks under that big belligerent exterior? In most situations, this is far easier to achieve than what the person perceives from their own limited perspective. Imagine what we can create on this planet when the vast resources spent on war are put to constructive use! Right now this is definitely not the dominant approach in politics. That’s why it needs to be embraced by as many of us as possible. The more of us start to see things in a balanced way, the more ‘normal’ and inescapable this kind of thinking will become. Even now, in the Age of Rednecks, it’s a relief to see things in a more holistic fashion.