Part of the problem with not talking seriously with people around me about the state of things is that I loose sight of the fact that feeling conflicted is a normal state of being in the world today. This comic got me thinking...
A feeling of internal conflict is simply a sign that I have emotions unreconciled with my logical understanding of any given thing. This is normal; we are emotional creatures. The trouble comes when I do not explore this contradiction. Our culture is brutally harsh toward anyone who appears to "waffle", "dither" or "flip-flop", and I think that this attitude is a steaming load.
In order to come to any sort of peace with myself, I must be willing to challenge my own assumptions, and continue to do so until there is some parity between my subconscious and conscious. Until I achieve gestalt.
This does not happen easily in a vacuum. The fundamental ethics, morals, and values that we rely upon to achieve this reconciliation are meaningless without community as a frame of reference. But we don't want our peers to think we do not have it all figured out, that we might wish or find need to redefine these very things. So, instead, we look to the media to give us our frame of reference. We note "opinion polls" and "editorial" comments. Fine as far as it goes, but it is a one way street. I can not ask a talking head, "If you feel like so about this, how do you rationalize that?" We get no opportunity to check the consistency of the logic, or plumb the depths of the feeling.
The point here, is that we are all in the same boat. My neighbor is just as confused as I am. I will make an effort to tell others about my conflicts and they might tell me about theirs. Together, we may take a small step closer to clarity.
Lyd,
I'm curious what you're conflicted about. The point of the comic seems to be that the movement is a very mixed bag. Is that it? Or are you unclear about whether we should go to war?
Michael
Tokyo
Sheesh, what am I not conflicted about?
The comic just got me thinking more generally about the ideas I am stumbling around in the post. The compnents of that mixed bag are not exploring the connections and contradictions between thier various platforms. Where does it all meet in the middle?
For myself... I am questioning a lot of things right now. How do I actually *do* something meaningfull to effect change in the things I am always complaining about? How can I find tuly objective facts about the things that concern me? What can I trust? How much of my worldview is my own reasoned conclusion and how much is based on assumptions?
For all of this and more, can I be certain I am acting and thinking based on core principles? Have I identified these principles? Are they my own?
You, know... conflicted.
Lyd,
Did the massive demonstrations over the weekend help you feel better at all?
Michael
Tokyo
*blink*
How would they have done that?
Well, apparently they wouldn't have.
But I was thinking that since they presented a more unified, much larger and much more global statement against the war, and that they seem to have had an impact on policymakers (e.g. Berlusconi's support is a bit more qualified), that your worries about conflicting platforms and effective action might have been reduced somewhat.
But those might not have been the points you were making, leaving me back wondering what point you were making, apart from your need to resolve an existential angst about what you believe and why, which is fine, even if readers of you blog are a bit puzzled.
Michael
Tokyo