Know any former flat earthers? I wonder What Changed their Minds.
Consider this: each of our respective positions may have a nugget of truth, but when this nugget is held up as the entire truth, the political f[r]actioning ensues.
Consider this nugget: if what what we see in others is often a reflection of ... something ... we see in ourselves, then it could mean that the flat-earther mindset represents something of our own tendencies to elevate a fragment of Truth into the whole Truth, neglecting numerous other pieces of information and principles. The flat-earthers, whose members are all around the world, are said to believe that the earth is flat, despite numerous photos from manmade satellites showing it to be spherical, easily verifiable mathematical calculations, or even just boarding a ship.
Given our limited vantage, we will naturally have disagreements such as flat-earth vs. round earth, but, in the interim, perhaps we can also come to seek common ground, in otherwise opposing views -- even seeking out the underlying nuggets of Truth, however distorted they may seem on the surface. Perhaps such distortions are merely intuitive insights that simply lack a proper logical framing.
So, with the nugget held by the flat-earthers, we may say that this world, we all find ourselves collectively immersed in, may have additional dimensions, or even that the dimension we exist in is flat relative to other dimensions, like a shadow to a tree. This is not the same as saying the earth is flat, but is similar, in principle. Sound nuts?
Some of our mathematicians seem to think there are other dimensions to our reality that currently escape our view. I don't understand them much either, but ... consider some of these more scientific type writings (external links follow):
As another analogy, consider that as the differences are to animals in body, perhaps there are similar differences in thinking between minds. For example, often, when I encounter a nurse for the first time, I will ask them about their experiences becoming comfortable with blood, needles, and such "pleasantries". They often explain it was not a major issue for them. Some just have a knack for it, I guess. I could handle my kids' and perhaps someone else's if I had to save them, but I wouldn't choose that life, yet some seem to be born for such a life.
In Nature, and in the animal kingdom - we see that some combinations work together as sustainable cycle, as part of a larger whole, and yet other combinations would just result in mutual destruction. Let's first consider the cat and mice cycle: mice contract a virus that causes them to lose their fear of cats, but the virus in turn kills the cats (credit Paul Blume - Psyc 101 course at OpenYale). Each has a role: beavers build entire ecosystems, and buzzards cleanup! It would be unsustainable to lock up a snake and cat together. But, let's try to relate such cat incompatibilities to our minds - there are minds which build ecosystems and minds which help cleanup the mess. Some minds like structure and others do not. Like the differences in capabilities between nurses and engineers, we find that there are many jobs where some are better suited, and need each other without realizing it, and others that are simply incompatible and must not be forced to cohabitate. Yet, too little diversity within the same species can be seen in the outcome of inbreeding. I am reminded of the recent election cycle and the American public's apparent disdain for Congress and at least 1 half of the country always repulsed with the current president.
A friend of mine has said to me: "Show me your strength, and I will show you your weakness." It has been my own personal observation that more or less all ideologies suffer from some key defect that adherents are often unable to see.
In American politics, there is so-called Left vs. Right thinking. While the validity of such labels as Left or Right accurately depicting political ideologies can be questioned, we can at least speak in some general terms. In general, both sides tend to view the world from an almost polar opposite perspective, yet, with some sense of irony, also have much in common without realizing it. At the center of this fight is the birth of new but old ideals, rising like a Phoenix, such as the ideas in the Libertarian philosophy.
In the political arena, proponents of Libertarianism often use the mantra: "Taxation is theft". Proponents of Barry Sanders proposals seem to use the very opposite thinking and want their "Fair share". Maybe the dispute is over the benefits being provided via the taxation system? Or maybe it is more fundamental?
Yet, it seems that one common thread shared by both parties is unrealistic expectations concerning funding. The mantra, Taxation is Theft, is true - there is no argument there; however, the question for those outside the movement is what degree of this theft is reasonable to avert outright civil war and the resulting loss in life as well as continue to live their existing lifestyles or have some improvement? The masses increasingly unite in the principle of obtaining their "fair share" - but their fair share, "of what?", is the question. Depends on who you ask.
Perhaps what is needed is the recognition of some of the principles driving the various factions each in their own way, with drastically different ideals for implementation. This could be in the form of a simple table which presents some of the strengths and weaknesses of each ideology. It seems to me that the libertarianism is fundamentally based on decentralization of power and type of idealism -yet all of our ideals may have their flaws.
For a long time, I struggled to understand why Bernie Sanders voters would be drawn to Libertarian candidates, when it finally occurred to me, that the common ground has something to do with expectations and the realism of those expectations. In my view, the idealism focused on decentralization and privatization is precisely what prevents the Libertarian movement from focusing and gaining more traction than it has and this same idealism is precisely what Bernie is able to sell to his fans - free college, free this, free that, but neglecting that somehow, someone - some unknown person is paying, or in mental movement of complete disconnection, declaring that the "government pays for it", without realizing that result this can have on one's own pay check.
Another weakness may be that for an ideology which emphasizes the individual, yet its adherents often declare non adherents to be sheep or sheeple, while paradoxically expecting that these same sheeple are capable of individual responsibility that would negate the need for laws (or fences), if we continue the sheep analogy.
