"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.


Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Politics, Sex And Religion

(or a short discourse on how to ruffle feathers across the galaxy)

Sometimes one should heed parental advice. I remember distinctly my mother advising me that politics, sex and religion should never be discussed in polite company. So, why do I spend my time online discussing these very issues? Am I a slow-learner? Do I have sado-masochistic tendencies? Do I think that in a predominately opinion based forum that those who also hold strong opinions will pay any credence to mine? Am I on some sort of power-trip lambasting my audience with irrefutable facts?
The questions for why I am, or why anyone is in political chat rooms could be as varied or as limited as one's psychological perspective allows. If there is a direct correlation between agenda and modus operandi, (which I think there is), perhaps it is pertinent that all of us ask ourselves what the hell we hope to achieve in political chat rooms.

An agenda, (for the sake of this discussion), is like the 'driving force' or the mission statement; the primary reason for action. Whereas, the modus operandi could be likened to the methods or solutions employed in order to further the agenda. So, I guess if there are those who come into these rooms in order to vent their dissatisfactions upon the world, it would be unlikely to expect a rational, objective debate from them if you are here to converse on a friendly basis.
Simply put this means:
1.If you are here to discuss, (and discussion is essentially non-combative) don't even attempt dialogue with someone who believes that a discussion and an argument is the same thing.
2. If you are here to debate, please inform yourself as to what a debate actually entails.
3. If you are here to argue, don't hold the mic down for ten minutes while you rant and rave and then wonder why the rest of the room wants you bounced.
Know yourself, know your agenda, and then check your modus operandi to see if the two are logically compatible.

What does that mean? It means that for many of us we cloak ourselves in the rhetoric and diatribe of our pre-conceived position and remain there. Wrapped in our personal comfort zones of biases and prejudices we berate others who do not see the world through our eyes when essentially it is physically and psychologically improbable for them to do so. We do NOT share either identically prescriptive genetic code nor do we share identical cultural and environmental influences. These are the two major influences upon our lives (the old NATURE / NURTURE Debate) and the very reasons for our expressed individualities.

That is: Most of us are totally unprepared to step outside our "comfort zone". It is a cosy, warm, safe haven where WE have ALL the answers. Consequently, when contradictory influences come a'knockin' we either set a personal defence of our barriers or we prepare ourselves for attack. My suggestion would be to do neither.
See yourself in all things and all things in yourself. The one true variable we all share is a sense of what it is to be human. Perhaps by seeing ourselves and others in this way will positively contribute to nullify the negative affects of billions of individually expressed personas.
By seeking to nurture, understand and appreciate diversity, we do not take from who we are, we simply add to it. I, for one, do not want my "comfort zone" to be so small, so exclusive, so inherently elitist that in order for it to exist, I must deny billions of other people the right to THEIR zones of comfort. For I think that it is only through the genuine desire to understand others that we can truly have any hope of understanding ourselves.

So, whichever part of the galaxy you call your home, or your 'comfort zone', ruffling your feathers may just cause others to ruffle theirs back at you. This, at best, will only afford light entertainment. At its worst the effects can be insidious, pervasive and downright bloody dangerous. My mother was essentially right when she advised me never to discuss politics, sex and religion in polite company. What she failed to point out with emphasis was that crucial word, "polite".

"The face you share with the world, is likely to be the face that stares back at you."



Blogger Lexcen said...

It seems we have the most to fear from those who are absolutely certain that their opinions are infallible and their convictions are unshakable.
These are the people who aren't open to dialog.

15/4/07 11:59 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home