Hayabusa Rider: We've talked about a change in our system and one common thought was a possibility of a Constitutional change. I'm not calling for an end to the nation but it has occurred to me that it takes a crisis to motivate many. If the result of this action is as I and some others believe, then we will have that catalyst. What I would have is the lessoning of control by the few. In other places a consensus, a necessary collaboration must exist to govern. Here the imperative is to win and rule. I have always been uncomfortable with that.
M: The science says that it is the conservative brain that contains the traits of group loyalty and it is they who display this will to win over anything.
H: And so I believe that the potential for change exists but with perils.
But before I go further in a dialogue, I would ask a few things so that a clear understanding may be had.
In your posts you differentiate between Conservatives and Liberals, bit does this compromise the totality of possibilities? Let's use me since to many self professed liberals I am conservative, especially when my ideas conflict with theirs, yet I hope for more change than they, but not for its own sake. Then I have been a liberal, one who objected to war and imprisonment. In these cases both terms were often meant as pejoratives, but that matters not.
M: Nothing you say here says anything other than that you are a liberal to me. Mind you, I have to guess at the implications you express in this post. I can't be sure I am reading what you intended to say.
H: But we are talking about who would be appointed, or perhaps anointed for this task, so for the purpose of discussion, what am I? Where do I fit and more importantly others who do not identify with the conflation of party and ideology?
M: I have no idea, no idea at all where I fit. I am not somebody who thinks much at all about where I fit. Group identity is not my thing. I believe the truth is always a third way, a synthesis of opposites resolved at a higher level of understanding. I can't provide anybody with the synthesis itself, that happens internally. What I try to do is supply that portion of the paradox that I sense is missing in the person to whom my post is intended.
-----------
M: I want to answer the following but I'm not really sure if I understand what I am being asked:
H: Again, I ask to further discussion and thought. I only ask that you consider and answer honestly. My ego will not be harmed in any case. Are we what we and others call us? Do we want equality in participation of those we do not identify with or do we (and I've been using "we" in a larger collective sense), seek uniformity and exclusion?
Are you asking of humanity seeks uniformity or exclusion? That is part of the divide between liberal and conservative thinking. Evolutionary biology seems to suggest to my best understanding that we do both, that each is a mental condition and that the understanding that we are all one is an emergent phenomenon that is being expressed around the world more and more because of need. It might be called enlightened self interest, my welfare is dependent on yours and my good intentions to you will be reflected back at me. We create what we fear or something else if we do not.
H: What does your whole self say?
M: Self knowledge is probably the hardest thing there is. I would say I don't know much.
H: I bring this up because if the time for such change as we envision comes to pass that these will matter.
M: I would like to hear more about what you are saying here.
Facebook
Twitter