The reframing of dissenting opinions (those that differ from the popular narrative) into "hate speech" is a truly terrifying path we're on in the West. I have watched otherwise decent and intelligent people fall prey to these narratives; I used to be able to disagree with a friend, have conversations, and go on loving them despite, and this is something I'm still willing to do, but I'm seeing proof that the politically correct folk who follow the popular narrative espoused by the establishment and the likes of NPR, are no longer able to do this. Is it their own decision? Their own growth? I have a hard time believing so, as we were able to have such conversations just a few years back, and go on being friends. Instead, I feel that it's the downloads they're getting which relabel disagreement as dangerous, as deadly. It's extreme, it's cult-like, but the programming has happened gradually enough that they see it as normal. But were it not for the media, would they hold these views, these definitions, these filters of seeing through, of categorizing? And with such conviction, like carrying a sacred object! Isn't it proof that the modern mind, steeped as it is in dense matter, believing in only the physical world, in the temporary, who has slain all things of the transcendent nature, still longs to cling to something, to hold something as sacred, and that something just happens to be the current events of their era. It's hard for me to imagine such a void now, such a simplistic way of living, so empty and weightless that it gets carried with the tide of the day, but it's not impossible to imagine as I've been there too. I've thought in that way before, with conviction. I've been a staunch Materialist, a Liberal, a Libertarian, an Anarchist, an Atheist, a Protestant Christian. And I'm thankful for all of these phases as it helps me more easily put myself between the ears of different groups of people who I now vehemently disagree with.
I am a person who loves nuance- in both the large-scale arena of thought where philosophy, science, history, politics, art, etc. can be torn apart and put back together again if someone is willing to go there with me, and I'm also this way down to my personal relationships and the conversations that happen there. I welcome disagreement, so long as it is done respectfully, and working my brain in that way feels as good as a physical workout at the gym. I believe our brains need various challenge just as our muscles need resistance to stay strong.
But a realization I've come to over time, sometimes mournfully and other times with deep frustration, is that hardly anyone is willing to go there in earnest. Maybe we don't have the time, which I understand as these kinds of conversations do take a good deal of that precious resource, but I think mainly what is lacking is the wherewithal, the actual love and care for truth. It seems obvious to me that our preference of comfort and fitting in almost always wins. And who wants to go about the heavy work of changing their whole worldview, I mean fundamentally, anyway?
My fear is that this trend is only going to continue spiraling downward, to grow increasingly worse, as we continue to get slammed with so much information, less time, and--this is a big one--the more we allow our emotions and sentimentality to pave the path to truth. On that topic, here's a bit of a nuanced digression: I do believe that 'feeling' is an important aspect when seeking the transcendent, but not so much when discussing modern politics, as our "leaders" speeches and media presentations are compiled to cater to and trigger those emotional brains of ours.
A simple quote I came across recently that hits the nail right on the head with a deafening and far-reaching ring is this:
"Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance."*
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could bring back nuance and the real taking of time to study and have exchanges before arriving so firmly at a position?
Concerning many of the pop-up movements that have trended over the last couple of years, I've been slow to come 'round, needing the time for this cherished nuance, desiring to suss out as many angles as possible, and to seek new angles even (original thought is gratifying, no?), wanting to ask questions... but have caught slack for doing so. Even asking questions that aren't categorized as politically correct will now get you silenced, cut off. What happened to engagement? To answering the question? Are people so worked up emotionally, so high-strung, that they no longer trust themselves to engage in difficult conversations?
The Western thought bubble seems to contain a graphic of Occam's Razor. Nuance is not prized, what is prized instead is simplicity. A decreasing of all categories, especially thought, to the lowest common denominator. For a group that claims to be so egalitarian and democratic, they certainly place themselves at the top of the hierarchy of thought, asserting an authority, a monopoly even, on truth.
And this all ties in to a paragraph I read last night in Guenon's The Reign of Quantity and The Signs of the Times, in the chapter entitled Unity and 'Simplicity' --
"We have seen that a desire for simplification can become illegitimate or pernicious and that it has become a distinctive feature of the modern mentality; this desire is so strong that certain philosophers have given way to it in the scientific domain, and have gone to the length of presenting it as a sort of logical 'pseudo-principle', in the form of a statement that 'nature always takes the simplest course.' This is a perfectly gratuitous postulate, for there does not seem to be any reason why nature should work in that way and not in any other; many conditions other than simplicity can enter into its workings, and can outweigh simplicity to such an extent that nature seems, at least from our point of view, often to take a course that is extremely complicated. Indeed, this particular 'pseudo-principle' amounts to no more than a wish arriving from a sort of 'mental laziness': it is desired that things should be as simple as possible, because if they really were so they would be so much the easier to understand; and all this is quite in accordance with the very modern and profane conception of a science that must be 'within the reach of all', but that is obviously only possible if it is so simple as to be positively 'infantile', and if all considerations of a superior or really profound order are rigorously excluded from it."
*quote by filmmaker Albert Maysles
