[M]ost Democrats grew up with and still believe a view of reason that has been shown in cognitive science and neuroscience to be false. The sciences of mind have shown that real reason is largely unconscious, requires emotion, uses ‘models’ (frames, metaphors, narratives) and so does not fit the world directly.
But Democrats tend to believe that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, and works by logic, not frames or metaphors. They thus believe that words have fixed literal meanings that fit the world in itself, regardless of models, frames, metaphors, or narratives. If you believe this, then original meaning could make sense. Democrats don't fight it when they should.
George Lakoff, whose efforts in sharing understanding about the inter-connected roles of communication, psychology, beliefs, and actions serve as vital contributions to helping us all understand our ideological differences, has also been pointed in his critiques of progressives and their shortcomings. Those of us on that same side of our polarized nation have little difficulty pointing out the many faults and failing of conservatism—especially the curious adaptation by extremists of longstanding principles to their equally curious perspectives of today.
But we progressives also bear responsibility for the mess we’re all in and which shows few signs of abating anytime soon. We ignore the significance and importance to conservative thought of moral values and beliefs which anchor much of their ideological viewpoints and policy initiatives. Our inclination is to just dismiss all of that as irrelevancies. [True, much of what they spout—and the defenses offered—are a wee bit disconnected from reality.]
But we make dialogue, compromise, and problem-solving that much more difficult by our own stubborn insistence that facts, logic, and reason are more than enough to bridge the divide so as to produce meaningful resolution. To our way of thinking, anything less makes no sense.
And thus the shortcoming. We stand on our reason- and logic-based side of the chasm, they stand on theirs with morality and values as their guides, and the middle widens.
Wouldn’t it make sense for each side [idealistic to the extreme, I know] to consider a move to that great middle where inclusion of these foundational components is an option. We don’t and won’t agree on everything, but a bit more understanding of what’s important to the other, why our own criteria aren’t always the one and only, and a recognition and understanding that a better future for us all remains the jointly-held objective might actually get us past the throwing stones stage of public conversation.
Can’t get any worse than it is now (let’s hope)!
Top Comments Submission Made Easy
|