El Loco Red
The German word "zeitgeist" in its simplest meaning refers to the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era. That is a small word with large implications for society. Simply said, the way we look at the world forms much of what we think we know. There is also a very old and somewhat profane
saying among wise seekers of truth that goes something like this:
"If you think you know what is going on, you are probably full of shit."
I always liked this, thought it appropriate, and definitely keeps me humble and to remain on the path to more exploration.
I get a lot of my data and information that I will use on this website from the various publications and other websites that I regularly read and sometimes mark or copy for later reference. I actually try to read all sides and positions of most topics so that I can have a broad understanding, at least for myself. This helps me to challenge my own views and to seek out and read other opposing or at least different views.
This is actually quite easy, as all I need to do is read, listen to, view, and consider almost all mainstream media, in all its forms. I will assert that most if it is left-leaning, even though the split between "left" and "right," if you will, is broadly speaking even, or close to it. And all us can point to exceptions, since we all know that what we think is true is actually true, otherwise we would not use that term. I will lay aside for the moment a discussion of what happens when we learn that what we thought was true was not actually true. Or maybe it's just useful to ponder without any answer.
The last sentence is to me a classic definition of "circular reasoning" which I will assert is a major source of difficult issues for sentient beings. It certainly is for me.
If you do not think this is so, then perhaps we have now identified the first problem, which is differing perceptions and information sources. Most people do not think that last statement is true, since we all tend to read or consume, if you will, what we agree with, thereby almost automatically ensuring that we think most people agree with us.
Those of us on the "right" have a smaller pool of information to draw from, since the media, education, and government tend to be left-leaning, and they dominate the major sources of information (meant in the broadest way possible). Those of you who do not agree with this should consult neutral sources, if you can find them, and see if my assertion is true. Some might simplify this by using the two terms "thinkers" and "doers." That is not always true, is a bit absurd, but useful for this conversation. Stay with me a bit before you stop reading and delete this website.
If we agree that this is true, then the question is: Why is that? The left will say that it is because deep thinkers, meaning those with responsibility to educate, inform, and entertain us, lean leftward. I will stipulate that most publicly consumed information is left-leaning. But why?
First, academia, writers, politicians, think-tank adherents, and much of the media are leftist; that is my assertion, and is backed up by data. If you don't agree, do your own research. So if we agree, at least for the purpose of this discussion, that this is true, why is that?
I submit that the two political and cultural "sides" - to use an inappropriate word, but which will have to do - exist in two mostly different domains of inquiry, knowledge, world-view, and background. A very gross and not highly accurate separation of these two domains yields, to me at least, a striking compartmental schism. And to nail home the point, consider "thinkers" and "doers."
Before you send the militia to my house to arrest me for such heresy (you don't know my address, anyway), take a look at who populates each side.
On the left is academia, publications, government, think-tanks, and assorted organizations dedicated to thoughts and actions which, very broadly speaking, are not tangible; that is, they inhabit the world of "thinking."
One the right are manufacturers, the military, builders, constructors, and those who work and produce in the physical realm, meaning "doers."
Further, each side thinks the other misses the point.
Now, of course this is simplistic, not accurate, and many exceptions can be noted that disproves this thesis. That does not mean that it is not useful in examining why this gulf exists. They are simply two different domains of thought, inquiry, action, and results. Neither is right or wrong, and both are clearly needed in this confusing planet that we all inhabit together. I will also stipulate that there are many exceptions to this general rule, as in all cases where reality is arbitrarily split into two components to make up the whole. I know, it is simplistic, and not fair. Deal with it for a short while more.
To me, however, is is an interesting and occasionally quite informative way of looking at the "two sides" as a metaphor for all the conversations (meant in the broadest sense possible) that take place on the planet. We each simply "come from different places" by which I mean we see the world differently, and that world view shapes our ongoing thoughts, ideas, and world-view.
Of course we are not totally dichotomous, and certainly there are many shades of gray, but it does help explain why our conversations with each other are often misunderstood, problematic, and antagonistic. Another reason this is so is that we do not yet know how to fully listen to each other. I will explain why on the website I create in my next life.