Many humans are contradictory creatures. They say one thing one minute and then something else to the contrary a minute later. How is it possible to have a rational conversation if the process of engaging with someone does not follow an informed logical formula?
I once had a conversation with someone who stated that the UK has multiple societies. He could not define society. He refused to accept the sociological definition and treated dogma like oxygen. He is a solicitor. What is to be done if this becomes the relative norm?
How can we defeat mass inequalities in wealth and income, racism, sexism, homophobia/transphobia, ageism… if those we need to comprehend the issues are engaging in thought processes that defy logic.
Bob in Lewisham could be almost anyone. The matter of contradiction before drawing another breath kills any discussion in which we seek to become enlightened. We then tend to seek out those who are either not contradictory (or only a little bit) but who tend to think similar to ourselves or those who contradict themselves in to a bunker and cannot find a way out.
The art of listening and considering has been murdered by the rush to challenge and deny. Social media has played its part as has the continued disempowerment by governments… who have no desire to liberate but only to obfuscate and misinform.
I have my own personal theory. It’s simple form goes like this.
In our brains/minds we have the capacity to be both competitive and altruistic. Some can be both. Not equally but it fluctuates. Others are either principally one or the other. The individual’s socialising/conditioning determines which one we are. Also ideological domination within any given society… plays a very significant role.
If we are brought up to be caring, tactile, understanding, empathetic… we are more likely to suppress (or try to) the competitive instincts to enable the former to be more dominant. If however, we are brought up in a less/non tactile environment in which we are taught that winning is everything then we tend to suppress the former to enable the latter to be dominant.
When we argue that one or the other is incompatible with human sustainability we are not arguing with psychological and moral reality but with the outcomes of our conditioning. If we had exited another womb instead we could very possibly be very different people.
What we have to do is allow ourselves to understand this and then accept that both are equally valid as behaviours but only one will be more effective at human and planetary sustainability. My conditioning has lead me to an osmosis of the former and the belief that this is a much more sustainable option. However, I do not deny the existence of the alternative and understand why this is so. Also as I have grown older I have become much more adept at suppressing the latter.
For myself knowing a ‘Bob’ who pours concrete on to our senses, is a matter of toleration. I avoid their ‘pearls of wisdom’ if it means listening to a plethora of contradictions or a denial of other cerebral and psychological constituencies. The world is a complex place and far beyond any human capability to comprehend, but in being so it cannot and should not at any point be reduced to simplistic notions and throwaways.
And for my part, opening the portal to the mind and not bunging it up with opaque matter is my preference based on my socialisation. For others it may be very different.
Jason Cridland
