February 11, 2017
Many of you have expressed exasperation with political
posts. OK – you’re not alone. This morning, I poured my coffee and turned to
MSNBC. Reporting from Tehran indicated that while the demonstrations included
some typical anti-U.S. rhetoric, there was a notable reduction this year in the
number of burning American flags, and many demonstrators expressed solidarity
with protesters of the current administration. There were pictures, of course,
and this all seemed believable. I turned to FOX. The story line was of a
belligerent display, that there were shouts everywhere of “death to America”,
and presented to the viewer a picture of a U.S. flag aflame. Clearly this was
also quite believable, as it’s the Tehran we've come to know and follows years of
the same. So, what do we take away? Who is correct… and is there even a single
“correct” here?
What did I take away from this morning’s news? Well, yes, our old adversaries in Iran are still there and must be managed, and they’re still aiming both invective and policy our way. But also that the populace itself may actually hold a more nuanced and shifting view of our country and its inhabitants, and that this divergence might present some kind of opening in the future if properly exploited and leveraged.
The larger point, perhaps, is this: if we are to return to civility in discourse, to thoughtful discussion, we must recognize the difference between opinion and fact. Between feeling and spin, and objective reality. You’re entitled to your feelings and opinions. They’re of course more compelling when fact and evidence-based. You are not entitled to your own versions of facts; these are simply obstructionist opinion. That a thing may fit a chosen narrative does not in itself bestow merit. And while that’s sometimes discomforting, the truly strong, substantive personality and mind is equipped to understand it and to adapt. If we were on the ground, there amongst the demonstrators, that would be rather direct evidence and basis for a fairly concrete stance. Were we, however, to have established a perspective based upon viewing only one of these news outlets, we’d have limited our impression of today’s events. Perhaps we'd now hold a less-informed perspective. Having not been there, of course, we must consult multiple sources to build a more circumspect opinion. And even then… it being indirect evidence… we must concede to not being primary sources and thus should be open to listening, to consulting other sources of information, and to conducting objective discussion – especially with those (should we be so fortunate) who are direct sources, and have studied or participated in the topic at hand.
Our country is in the grips of an intellectual crisis long in the making. I cannot possibly enumerate all of the causes and contributors here in this post. But unless and until we recognize the difference between what we wish or assume to be true, based upon narrow and indirect sources, versus demonstrable fact through direct evidence or at the very least based upon a broad survey of credible indirect sources, we will continue to follow an unsustainable path of division and discord of our own creation.
Oh, and these are Mr. Jefferson’s Books, Library of Congress.
What did I take away from this morning’s news? Well, yes, our old adversaries in Iran are still there and must be managed, and they’re still aiming both invective and policy our way. But also that the populace itself may actually hold a more nuanced and shifting view of our country and its inhabitants, and that this divergence might present some kind of opening in the future if properly exploited and leveraged.
The larger point, perhaps, is this: if we are to return to civility in discourse, to thoughtful discussion, we must recognize the difference between opinion and fact. Between feeling and spin, and objective reality. You’re entitled to your feelings and opinions. They’re of course more compelling when fact and evidence-based. You are not entitled to your own versions of facts; these are simply obstructionist opinion. That a thing may fit a chosen narrative does not in itself bestow merit. And while that’s sometimes discomforting, the truly strong, substantive personality and mind is equipped to understand it and to adapt. If we were on the ground, there amongst the demonstrators, that would be rather direct evidence and basis for a fairly concrete stance. Were we, however, to have established a perspective based upon viewing only one of these news outlets, we’d have limited our impression of today’s events. Perhaps we'd now hold a less-informed perspective. Having not been there, of course, we must consult multiple sources to build a more circumspect opinion. And even then… it being indirect evidence… we must concede to not being primary sources and thus should be open to listening, to consulting other sources of information, and to conducting objective discussion – especially with those (should we be so fortunate) who are direct sources, and have studied or participated in the topic at hand.
Our country is in the grips of an intellectual crisis long in the making. I cannot possibly enumerate all of the causes and contributors here in this post. But unless and until we recognize the difference between what we wish or assume to be true, based upon narrow and indirect sources, versus demonstrable fact through direct evidence or at the very least based upon a broad survey of credible indirect sources, we will continue to follow an unsustainable path of division and discord of our own creation.
Oh, and these are Mr. Jefferson’s Books, Library of Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment