Know any former flat earthers? I wonder What Changed their Minds.
Flat-earthers are said to believe that the earth is flat, despite numerous photos from manmade satellites showing it to be spherical. Yet, perhaps such positions are merely a reflection of some of our own positions.
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. Within the flat-earther mindset, there is apparently quite some discussion and disagreement, and as mentioned in the aforelinked articled, quite some room for things such as Einstein's theories.
If it true that what we see in others is but a reflection of ... something ... we see in ourselves, then it could mean that the flat-earther mindset represents one which while possessing a fragment of Truth has elevated this fragment into the whole Truth all the while neglecting numerous other pieces of information and principles.
If this is true, then consider -given our limited vantage, we will naturally have disagreements, but in the interim we can also come to appreciate what is commonly held, in otherwise opposing views.
Let's consider the example of the flat-earthers, which is probably one of the more difficult disagreements to get around. They have members all over the globe, but if we look to what may be a nugget of truth they hold, we may say that this world, we all find ourselves collectively immersed in, may have additional dimensions. It's not the same as saying the earth is flat, but is similar, in principle.
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 ...
The flat earth people, while not making sense to me on the surface, may have a point that they are arriving at intuitively, but have, unfortunately, turned into a religion with a blind spot for those immersed in it, due to their heavy investment.
This principle, if extrapolated out, seems to reveal that each mindset or ideology has a blind spot - each with its own set of adherents and deniers.
I'm sure it happens to the best of us.
As the differences are to animals in body, so are the differences in thinking between minds. Often, when I encounter a nurse for the first time, I will ask them about their experiences becoming comfortable with blood, needles, stuff like that. They often explain it was no big deal. 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!
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.
It is an old story told in the fight as told in the struggle between the Morlock vs. the Eloi. At the center of this fight is an old ideology, that is again being reborn. Yet it is as a chick struggling to break free from its proverbial egg shell and its strength is the very weakness which causes people to continue to ignore it.
There are examples. 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", with the benefits being provided via the taxation system. 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.
Perhaps what is needed is a single operating principle that can then be embodied through the various factions each in their own way, as well as 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, its adherents often declare non-adherents to be sheep or sheeple, yet stressing the sheeple are capable of individual responsibility that would negate the need for laws or fences if we continue the sheep analogy.
