I appreciate the timeliness of this article, Charles. Just today I caught myself in the two-side paradigm, kind of embarrassing to bring up (but perhaps being honest about this will open me up to better non-judgment)...
I watched a Derrick Broze video where he was interviewing various people at yesterday's No Kings protest in Houston, TX. I found it interesting that Derrick chose people to interview who were wearing N95 masks like are worn by Covid narrative pushers/fearmongers. My initial reaction was quick and fierce like lightening: "How can Derrick stand to interview these sheep fucks?" And my 'instinct' was to stop watching/listening.
Suddenly, this guy garble-talking into his mask was telling why he came to the protest. He said he is tired of the bi-partisan clown show and coerced division, believing that there is only a uni-party that is controlled by the powers that shouldn't be behind the curtain. He explained how difficult it is to get people he knows to understand that the major agendas are being pushed down our throats no matter what side is in office.
Well, right there I got a wake up call. Despite wearing a mask, the guy was speaking intelligently and speaking his truth despite most everyone else at the protest being 'Left' lovers and Trump haters. Reactions come so quickly, and expectations are killers for me.
Thanks for this welcome reality check in the face of the political shell-game we've all been subjected to over the past several years. To switch metaphors, it's almost as if there's been a pole shift whereby left and right have traded places -- but of course that's too simplistic, and only really applies to certain issues (ones you mention, like censorship, sympathy for mega-crops and hawkishness). I mean, right and left have always been abstractions, but at least we basically knew what they referred to in 'the before times.' I genuinely have no idea now. All told I'm with you that it's past time to upgrade our terminology and ways of thinking beyond the binary. Easier said than done, granted. How shall we begin?
This is a good article about the problems with "labels" and especially binary thinking in labels.
Instead of "identifying" with a specific nation or tribe, I prefer to consider myself a Global Citizen where there are no binary "labels" imposed upon me. In our society, an issue is generally presented in terms of one "extreme" vs an opposing "extreme". Often there are third and possibly more approaches than the two.
Our approach to civil problems don't have to be through the approach of violence.
Imagine if we approached the issue of deportation with Compassion. Imagine if we approached the issue of immigration with Compassion. Imagine if we approached the problems of a broken justice system, economic problems, our foreign relations problems with the North Star of Compassion.
I consider myself a fuck-you centrist. As in "fuck you, don't tell me what to think" and "fuck you I won't do what you tell me".
I appreciate and agree with the intent of the article, but I can't help but notice that you write about moving beyond polarity by writing extensively about polarity in polarizing terms. I have to wonder why you're so fixated on this topic, keep approaching it in the same way, and drawing the same response. I suspect that there is a lesson in this cycle we all need to learn, especially you. So, despite my discomfort with this topic and disagreement with how some points are made, I thank you for providing us with a collective learning opportunity.
I also noticed that your bias is showing. For example: You spend the first several paragraphs of the article talking about the schism in "the left" and how "the left" lost its way. And then grudgingly add a paragraph about "the right" ("One might make a similar distinction within the right."). Is this not a Janus-headed distinction? Is it not similar flaws in our collective understanding of our relationships with the planet and each other that drive the unfortunate behavior on both sides of the arbitrary aisle?
I felt your sense of betrayal by "the left". I think this is understandable considering the limited amount I know about what you lost due to your stance on COVID, mainly at the hands of "the left". This might be an interesting topic for a future "Letters from Charles". It might help some of us who are "cynical" to understand a bit more about where you're coming from.
I remember when you used to speak about these problems as originating not from "the right" or "the left" but from "the machine" or "the world destroying machine". I used to appreciate that monicker for what we face. Having direct experience facing down the machine in my own life and career, I find it very fitting.
I do wonder, doesn't the term "two-sideism" itself reinforce the idea of two sides? I know you are using it to critique the idea that there are only two sides, but is there a danger that the term itself reinforces the very idea? George Lakoff and Mark Johnson made this point - when we say "don't think of X" what do we think of? Sometimes, I think, we just ahave to assert what we ARE for/about, not what we are against. And keep asserting it, in the face of a world that wants to pull us back into polarities. It's hard. I struggle with this all the time.
I love the idea of using fractals to describe any social order, political or otherwise...the world might make a little more sense that way. Listening to people who identify with one or the other strongly, I sense a strong personal need to maintain the division. Maybe Rorschach was onto something after all...and had some knowing about the fractals hidden within them?
Nonbinary everything! Not just nonbinary, anti-binary! Out to transcend all binaries!
You know though, a lot of my Leftist friends might say that the mentioned CIA programs did a pretty good job of making the Left controlled opposition for the rise of an authoritarian Right.
Hear me out, this is actually nuanced.
I deeply believe the “fuck you” Left is full of 1. bots, 2. commenters taking their cues from bots and 3. influencers taking their cues directly from what succeeds on the algorithm and the point of all this digital bot/algorithm manipulation is to alienate the Listening [sides] so that the authoritarian [sides] can take power.
That’s the myth that helps me contextualize all the fuck-you two-sides-ism in a way that keeps me from being either repelled by or seduced into joining the game of dividing the world into tribal binaries.
It doesn’t mean Listeners vrs Authoritarians, either, though. Which I won’t belabor because the essay says it wonderfully.
What it does mean is that if I start talking like a bot, spewing hate/separation to find success in the algorithm, I am directly contributing to the (mythical or metaphorical or simply non-agentic/emergent) conspiracy that has as its only purpose my disempowerment and degradation.
True binaries are really rare; it's the problem with AI. People? We're super multi-faceted. Even the magnetic field of the earth (which produces the N and S "poles") is not limited to north and south, that's produced by the sphere of the earth. What's kind of ironic is that both "left and right" hold no appeal to me. We need something new.
Traditionally, left-wing politics is one that advocates social equality and egalitarianism rather than social hierarchy; involves a concern for the interests of the disadvantaged, and seeks to reduce or eliminate disparity in status, power, and wealth. Any sane human being must be struggling to find something worth criticizing in that.
So, a very large proportion of self-proclaimed rightists are, morally speaking, leftists. But their minds got hijacked by fascist propaganda to turn them into useful idiots. Conversely, a very large proportion of people who call themselves "the left" are demonstrably right-wingers. Finally, almost all governmental policies in the modern world are in the service of corporate interests, therefore right-wing.
I would summarize by highlighting a crucial distinction between left/right. A common trait of rightists is self-interest, the only difference being:
- for some, business is more important than people
- for others, politics is more important than people
For leftists, there is nothing more important than the people.
In the last part of your article you advocate the creation of a new term two-sidism. That term makes me think of 'dialogue'. But there is so much more between people and the world around us. Why not 'moresidism' as a logical follow-up, desirable development, after two-sidism?
Duality or unity consciousness, or perhaps better said, duality AND unity. Well caught, Charles, as our language shapes our reality. The dance of binary and analog. The cat is both alive and dead.
Good follow-up Charles. It's something I think we are all struggling with. The aggressor always seems to have the upper hand, and this is the microcosm of the binary inherent in Power Over actions. So much of the myths turn on this exploration.
But two quick things come to mind: instead of right and left, sometimes we say red and blue, yes? well, starting in this decade, I refuse that binary, and consider myself something deeper than centrist: I am Chthonic, and the best part about that is, our color is deep purple
#2 - this whole topic was actually pretty well discussed by the other main substacker I read a lot, mister Ted Gioia, check it out, very good exploration of this from a certain viewpoint, and entertaining:
Still, you use quite a lot of labels in this piece: "liberal media" "libertarian right" "Big Pharma" "Covid orthodoxy" "inveterate warmongers" "hateful ideologues" and so forth. You may be familiar with Tajfel's Social Identity Theory -- basically he put people into two completely arbitrary groups based on a card color and they soon came to strongly identify with their "in group" and oppose the "out group." It's strongly wired into human nature.
I appreciate the timeliness of this article, Charles. Just today I caught myself in the two-side paradigm, kind of embarrassing to bring up (but perhaps being honest about this will open me up to better non-judgment)...
I watched a Derrick Broze video where he was interviewing various people at yesterday's No Kings protest in Houston, TX. I found it interesting that Derrick chose people to interview who were wearing N95 masks like are worn by Covid narrative pushers/fearmongers. My initial reaction was quick and fierce like lightening: "How can Derrick stand to interview these sheep fucks?" And my 'instinct' was to stop watching/listening.
Suddenly, this guy garble-talking into his mask was telling why he came to the protest. He said he is tired of the bi-partisan clown show and coerced division, believing that there is only a uni-party that is controlled by the powers that shouldn't be behind the curtain. He explained how difficult it is to get people he knows to understand that the major agendas are being pushed down our throats no matter what side is in office.
Well, right there I got a wake up call. Despite wearing a mask, the guy was speaking intelligently and speaking his truth despite most everyone else at the protest being 'Left' lovers and Trump haters. Reactions come so quickly, and expectations are killers for me.
Thanks for this welcome reality check in the face of the political shell-game we've all been subjected to over the past several years. To switch metaphors, it's almost as if there's been a pole shift whereby left and right have traded places -- but of course that's too simplistic, and only really applies to certain issues (ones you mention, like censorship, sympathy for mega-crops and hawkishness). I mean, right and left have always been abstractions, but at least we basically knew what they referred to in 'the before times.' I genuinely have no idea now. All told I'm with you that it's past time to upgrade our terminology and ways of thinking beyond the binary. Easier said than done, granted. How shall we begin?
This is a good article about the problems with "labels" and especially binary thinking in labels.
Instead of "identifying" with a specific nation or tribe, I prefer to consider myself a Global Citizen where there are no binary "labels" imposed upon me. In our society, an issue is generally presented in terms of one "extreme" vs an opposing "extreme". Often there are third and possibly more approaches than the two.
Our approach to civil problems don't have to be through the approach of violence.
Imagine if we approached the issue of deportation with Compassion. Imagine if we approached the issue of immigration with Compassion. Imagine if we approached the problems of a broken justice system, economic problems, our foreign relations problems with the North Star of Compassion.
"Imagine" is a great song.
I consider myself a fuck-you centrist. As in "fuck you, don't tell me what to think" and "fuck you I won't do what you tell me".
I appreciate and agree with the intent of the article, but I can't help but notice that you write about moving beyond polarity by writing extensively about polarity in polarizing terms. I have to wonder why you're so fixated on this topic, keep approaching it in the same way, and drawing the same response. I suspect that there is a lesson in this cycle we all need to learn, especially you. So, despite my discomfort with this topic and disagreement with how some points are made, I thank you for providing us with a collective learning opportunity.
I also noticed that your bias is showing. For example: You spend the first several paragraphs of the article talking about the schism in "the left" and how "the left" lost its way. And then grudgingly add a paragraph about "the right" ("One might make a similar distinction within the right."). Is this not a Janus-headed distinction? Is it not similar flaws in our collective understanding of our relationships with the planet and each other that drive the unfortunate behavior on both sides of the arbitrary aisle?
I felt your sense of betrayal by "the left". I think this is understandable considering the limited amount I know about what you lost due to your stance on COVID, mainly at the hands of "the left". This might be an interesting topic for a future "Letters from Charles". It might help some of us who are "cynical" to understand a bit more about where you're coming from.
I remember when you used to speak about these problems as originating not from "the right" or "the left" but from "the machine" or "the world destroying machine". I used to appreciate that monicker for what we face. Having direct experience facing down the machine in my own life and career, I find it very fitting.
I do wonder, doesn't the term "two-sideism" itself reinforce the idea of two sides? I know you are using it to critique the idea that there are only two sides, but is there a danger that the term itself reinforces the very idea? George Lakoff and Mark Johnson made this point - when we say "don't think of X" what do we think of? Sometimes, I think, we just ahave to assert what we ARE for/about, not what we are against. And keep asserting it, in the face of a world that wants to pull us back into polarities. It's hard. I struggle with this all the time.
I love the idea of using fractals to describe any social order, political or otherwise...the world might make a little more sense that way. Listening to people who identify with one or the other strongly, I sense a strong personal need to maintain the division. Maybe Rorschach was onto something after all...and had some knowing about the fractals hidden within them?
Nonbinary everything! Not just nonbinary, anti-binary! Out to transcend all binaries!
You know though, a lot of my Leftist friends might say that the mentioned CIA programs did a pretty good job of making the Left controlled opposition for the rise of an authoritarian Right.
Hear me out, this is actually nuanced.
I deeply believe the “fuck you” Left is full of 1. bots, 2. commenters taking their cues from bots and 3. influencers taking their cues directly from what succeeds on the algorithm and the point of all this digital bot/algorithm manipulation is to alienate the Listening [sides] so that the authoritarian [sides] can take power.
That’s the myth that helps me contextualize all the fuck-you two-sides-ism in a way that keeps me from being either repelled by or seduced into joining the game of dividing the world into tribal binaries.
It doesn’t mean Listeners vrs Authoritarians, either, though. Which I won’t belabor because the essay says it wonderfully.
What it does mean is that if I start talking like a bot, spewing hate/separation to find success in the algorithm, I am directly contributing to the (mythical or metaphorical or simply non-agentic/emergent) conspiracy that has as its only purpose my disempowerment and degradation.
True binaries are really rare; it's the problem with AI. People? We're super multi-faceted. Even the magnetic field of the earth (which produces the N and S "poles") is not limited to north and south, that's produced by the sphere of the earth. What's kind of ironic is that both "left and right" hold no appeal to me. We need something new.
Traditionally, left-wing politics is one that advocates social equality and egalitarianism rather than social hierarchy; involves a concern for the interests of the disadvantaged, and seeks to reduce or eliminate disparity in status, power, and wealth. Any sane human being must be struggling to find something worth criticizing in that.
So, a very large proportion of self-proclaimed rightists are, morally speaking, leftists. But their minds got hijacked by fascist propaganda to turn them into useful idiots. Conversely, a very large proportion of people who call themselves "the left" are demonstrably right-wingers. Finally, almost all governmental policies in the modern world are in the service of corporate interests, therefore right-wing.
I would summarize by highlighting a crucial distinction between left/right. A common trait of rightists is self-interest, the only difference being:
- for some, business is more important than people
- for others, politics is more important than people
For leftists, there is nothing more important than the people.
This is really helpful. I love the "listening left" and the "listening right" examples. Thank you Charles!
Dear Charles, thanks for everything.
In the last part of your article you advocate the creation of a new term two-sidism. That term makes me think of 'dialogue'. But there is so much more between people and the world around us. Why not 'moresidism' as a logical follow-up, desirable development, after two-sidism?
Greetings from Ite from the Netherlands.
Duality or unity consciousness, or perhaps better said, duality AND unity. Well caught, Charles, as our language shapes our reality. The dance of binary and analog. The cat is both alive and dead.
Good follow-up Charles. It's something I think we are all struggling with. The aggressor always seems to have the upper hand, and this is the microcosm of the binary inherent in Power Over actions. So much of the myths turn on this exploration.
But two quick things come to mind: instead of right and left, sometimes we say red and blue, yes? well, starting in this decade, I refuse that binary, and consider myself something deeper than centrist: I am Chthonic, and the best part about that is, our color is deep purple
https://youtu.be/uEFChMd8-7U?si=OwZtqkvpSc9Zj-Kz
#2 - this whole topic was actually pretty well discussed by the other main substacker I read a lot, mister Ted Gioia, check it out, very good exploration of this from a certain viewpoint, and entertaining:
https://www.honest-broker.com/p/how-to-tell-if-youre-living-in-a?r=1ojvk4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Still, you use quite a lot of labels in this piece: "liberal media" "libertarian right" "Big Pharma" "Covid orthodoxy" "inveterate warmongers" "hateful ideologues" and so forth. You may be familiar with Tajfel's Social Identity Theory -- basically he put people into two completely arbitrary groups based on a card color and they soon came to strongly identify with their "in group" and oppose the "out group." It's strongly wired into human nature.
Please do a recording of this.💜🙏🏻
As Frank Zappa said, “Politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex".