ILLUMINATION
Published in

ILLUMINATION

Right vs. Left thinking and true reconciliation

Society has become very polarized in the last year, somehow, everyone gets to notice this, because of the lack of true understanding of our perception biases.

It is actually very scary to look deeper into your perspective and see how little you actually can prove to someone if they ask you for evidence in support of what you believe. Most of the information we hold goes unverified and for a good reason: trying to justify something is as subordinated to biases as something completely unverifiable. Anyone can disprove and prove anything because of the nature of Logic itself. There are many types of logical systems and types of thinking that each discipline use, for instance science uses the standard axiomatic logics and, there are also other types of logics, like para-consistent logics, which takes both an argument and its opposite as being true simultaneously. (Brian Greene explains it in the beginning of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXuelZVLdzM&t=350s&ab_channel=WorldScienceFestival )

So, you would think that everyone uses the standard axiomatic logics when they formulate a thesis, but looking more thoroughly into what someone is implying to you, even in the way they formulate their arguments, you would see tiny errors in articulation, maybe in the meaning of the words, maybe fallacies in what they are trying to prove and a wrong usage of conjunctions, for instance, which reveal their misappropriation of terms, their own cognitive dissonances and biases etc. There are Logic manuals which teach you dozens of types of logical errors that someone can use and one of the most used logical errors today is argumentum ad misericordiam

used by all people from all paradigms and all forms of thinking and perspectives.

No one thinks about appealing to pity as something erroneous but rather as something unethical at most. But not something illogical almost.

Because if you are to really uncover the correctness of something, rather than its ethical or unethical standpoints, you are more keen on correcting it. When we say something is unjust, and we are all trapped in this, we can’t really correct it because(and I am going to make a logical error here): we can’t really measure water’s temperature by measuring its length as much as we can’t really measure the impacts of an action by measuring its ethical degree of impact. In other words, we cannot really solve our perception biases and our contradictions because we measure them ethically rather than logically. That is not to reverse this idea and use logics to denounce something unethical, because there is a place for ethics too.

But before we dive deep into the place of logics and the proper place of ethics in our societal conflicts and confrontations(which are based in polarization and logical contradictions), let me explain why I have made a mistake above.

I would use a false argument to imply something about an idea that I am trying to convince you of, in the example with water and measurement.

(a summary of logical errors in discourse is found at this link: https://kreativcopywriting.com/10-logical-fallacies-know-spot/ )

One of the errors mentioned is the classical “Everyone is right” type of reasoning that is being used all over the world to prove some sort of tolerance towards people’s biases. Everything is loose, and some people know this. Some people know that we measure intellectual things emotionally and emotional things intellectually and they don’t mind us being confused at all.

Being pissed off because some people don’t seem to get it has become the norm. “They are wrong”/”We are right” type of mentality is the way to discern. At least, they have another perspective that I don’t agree with.

But the danger isn’t necessarily in us turning fanatics, for lack of a better term, because we are idealizing our perspectives a lot anyways, the real danger is in us losing our ideas completely to norms, rigors and algorithms of behavior, simply because we choose to ignore our blind spots. And the real blind spot here isn’t not caring about other people’s perspectives, it’s in our inability to properly articulate our truths(and our tendency to “steal” from the opponents arguments and to practice a sort of reverse mirroring and dumping or discarding of words into the other side’s paradigm), simply put, we are in a word battle when we should be cultivating virtue and we are virtuously walking away from our own ideas and choose to let AI algorithms to do the thinking for us. Instead of really investigating the discrepancy between what we say and what we imply, we choose to be defensive or offensive about political views, religious views, cultural views, but we don’t really see simple errors in our thinking(which are later revealed if the conflict lasts longer it becomes absurd and reveals ultimately the conflict of meaning of words, or simpler, the illogical formulations that we hold in our subconscious which come to surface as “Truth always comes to surface”).

The real danger is to measure a false contradiction like Truth vs. Lie-for instance a real contradiction is Truth vs. Ignorance(that truth exists), whereas Lie would be a false opposite(another false contradiction is Light vs. Dark, where dark is actually a false opposite and a true opposite for Light is a nonWaveLight function, a limit where light waves don’t exist, whereas in “darkness” they do exist but they are imperceptible to us), in terms of good or bad. Measuring something which is simply correct or incorrect in terms of good and bad isn’t going to help us fix it. Appealing to emotions isn’t solving logical errors as much as appealing to AI algorithms to fix emotional issues that we hold(for instance censoring some people on the internet) isn’t going to help us fix violence in the world. To dive a bit deeper, is to see how we can’t really apply ethics until we think correctly, at least, until we understand that logically speaking, some of our problems are false problems and some of the true problems go unnoticed- for instance labelling someone, something, as bad, immoral etc. implies that you know or have a common sense of the meaning of that label, which doesn’t actually happen all the time. Like Wittgenstein used to say “Most of our conflicts are conflicts of the meaning that we attribute to words”. Most of our conflicts are language conflicts. But maybe this perspective is a bit robotic, so let’s put it in more humane terms-Most of our conflicts are due to the fact that we don’t stand at the same level of interpretation of things and some people have more freedom in attributing meaning than others. And this thing backfires into a lot of inferred conflicts of world-views.

Seeing beyond our problems in perception is seeing also how we can use our biases for the better and make use of them rather than suppressing them, at least until we find a true middle path(which I don’t think we need in most cases because a lot of contradictions are false contradictions, or at least, we don’t identify correctly the opposing term). Thinking about problems like poverty vs. abundance isn’t helping with how much unconsciousness exists on the planet in terms of how we spend our resources. Seeing an ethical reasoning for how to grant people a form of universal income, isn’t actually solving how bad we are at managing what we have, isn’t teaching us how to really help each other prosper. If anything, that’s a coping mechanism.

If censoring people, freedom of speech, racism, gender equality, expression, love, money, political dictatorship, disease, famine, war and fanaticism are really issues, then being logical rather than reasonable and humane rather than algorythmical could be a solution. Creating more laws for a process of thinking that we should have on a daily basis, being both good and correct, is worse than not having any laws and actually having to figure out things by ourselves. At least we would keep ourselves busy with questioning things rather than taking things for granted and regurgitating answers and thinking processes from the collective mind web.

So, when we are triggered, when we are trying to impose a new norm, a new law, a new perspective, we shouldn’t forget these questions:

Is it Correct?

Is it Good?

Is it Necessary?

And of course, we should answer honestly to these questions.

Given what is happening right now in USA, but not only, in the entire world almost, because things are a bit harsh, (a bit??!!), there is a good way to gain more perspective: ask yourself if you perceive things directly or are using a perception bias of false opposites. Like the one of Left vs. Right…Did you know that the real opposite for a political view is a non-political view entirely? Left, right, up, down-are complementary directions…even if at times we make them oppose for the sakes of movement itself…

--

--

--

We curate and disseminate outstanding articles from diverse domains and disciplines to create fusion and synergy.

Recommended from Medium

No contemplation without representation

The Age of Megafailure

Eating Meat is Wrong?

Déjà vu and Synchronicities: a wider understanding

The Universe, My Karma and Me

Why Global Breakdown is in a Broken Calculus of the Human Good

The Corona Wake up Call

Capitalism and the Age of Thanatos

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Ruxandra Pana

Ruxandra Pana

Visual Artist & Reiki Healer

More from Medium

Phony Khan’s Shenanigans

Reality is on the brink

Morality and Dominance Hierarchies: A new perspective of Evolutionary Psychology

Toxic Certainty: A Brief Investigation