There exist views and opinions and perspectives which are extremely repugnant to your views and opinions and perspectives and beliefs

 

The default response is more conflict, more repudiation, more stubbornness

The false adaptation is argumentum ad temperantiam — argument to moderation. Like all fallacies is distorts the reality in some way, by imposing it’s own simplification on it, sometimes more inaccurate sometimes merely simplistically reductive .

The only correct response is more depth. And not a little more depth — a LOT LOT more depth.

 

One must first resist the intuitive, typically emotional instinct to OPPOSE, to defend from the attack, and attack in return

But one must then also resist the instinct to seek false reconciliation, false compromise

 

In truth seeking there are no compromises

NOR does it mean that the opposite of compromise is VIOLENT REBELLION

NOR does it mean, again, that opposite of intuitive opposition is a compromise

We always identify but part of the problem — then attempt to solve it by doing the opposite. Failing to grasp that the answer is neither. The answer is a different path altogether.

 

Being uncompromising is NOT truth seeking.

It’s TRUTH-seeking which is uncompromising.

Being rebellious is not equal to being a non-conformist. One can be a very conformist rebel.

But being a non-conformist is inevitably being in a rebellion.

 

Being “balanced” is not seeking false compromise or false middle ground.

But TRUTH-seeking does require one to balance — at the very least to gain the NECESSARY PERSPECTIVE of the ENTIRETY of possibilities.

 

Compromise is not ANY intrinsic quality of truth. It does not, in any sense, make something more true.

But compromise is a FRUITFUL ATTITUDE to even BEGIN to PURSUE TRUTH AS A COLLECTIVE.

It’s NOT TRUTH which is compromised — truth can’t be compromised. A dog can’t half-be a dog (and half a cat).

It’s ATTITUDE which is compromised. It’s a choice of finding what two of you AGREE ON — before building up to what you disagree on.

This is fruitful and I don’t condemn it — I completely encourage it

But TRUTH ITSELF — that innately can’t be compromised.

You don’t truth-seek by subtracting % of your conviction for every new person that disagrees with you.

There’s COMMUNICATING — which benefits from compromise — and there’s INDIVIDUAL TRUTH-seeking — which not only doesn’t benefit, but is utterly prevented if approach with compromise

 

THE ONLY ANSWER IS DEPTH

MORE, MORE, MORE DEPTH

 

Obviously not more conflict

We are taught to NOT react to opposing views with violence.

But we only learn this a few times in our lives, when we are at some level of DISCORDANCE, between our views and the opposing views.

As we go through life — we tend to become MORE committed to our views, not less.

And as we go through life — we tend to encounter MORE adversarial, opposing views.

We only learned to “tolerate” to a certain fixed degree — typically the degree to which we were conflicted WHEN we had had this great wisdom of moderation and tolerance imparted upon.

So as we go through life, and become MORE conflicted — we believe that NOW IT IS JUSTIFIED to react violently

Because we never learned the principle

We only learned fragment of behaviour

Without principle, it’s just an empty act.

And it breaks down under any real pressure.

 

THE ONLY ANSWER IS MORE MORE DEPTH

Not a compromise, I said enough about compromising

 

The only answer is far more depth

This is the “middle way”, except it’s not in the middle, it’s a completely separate response

It opposition and conflict is a PUSHING action, and COMPROMISE is a PULLING one — personal development of more understanding, depth, wisdom, insight — is a different way altogether, and entirely unrelated to the previous paradigm

 

Why more depth?

BECAUSE YOU LACK IT.

And it’s ok that you lack it

You can’t possibly have all the information, all the insight, all the intelligence in the world — but you MUST make decisions.

It’s not only normal that you are WRONG and make mistakes — it’s necessary. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to do anything.

However,

There’s a difference between beliefs you held temporarily in order to inform your imminent actions — and beliefs you are supposed to refine throughout your life.

And again: nothing can you know with utmost certainty

Anything has infinite depth

Even lifetime beliefs — those you strive to develop at a very great depth — are still limited by mere EXPEDIENCY. Beliefs only matter if they are useful

You can only know so much

You need only know so much.

Therefore the depth must be gauged

It’s automatically predetermined by the limitations of time — when decisions must immediately be made

But with longer standing beliefs — the DEPTH of your beliefs should be informed by the DEGREE OF DISCORDANCE

THIS is why the response to discordant views is more depth

 

And I understand that sometimes the quick, violent response seems necessary.

And I understand that increasing one’s depth of understanding seems to actually widen the gap between one’s expertise and the prevailing ignorance.

But frustration only increases to a certain point.

Once true depth has been reached — the response becomes benign again

It’s not unlike a conversation between nuclear physicist and a flat-earther. Or like between a child and an adult.

The capacity for conflict has been exhausted. It’s as though by now you have already left the gravitational field

 

If you examine the source of this instinctive rebellious, adversarial response — you realise it’s rooted in your own insecurity.

And SO IS your desire for compromise.

When there is true conviction, true depth — then there’s neither hostile response, nor conciliatory.

There’s simply individual conviction.

One lives on a different planet.

 

Of course there are exceptions — when profound delusion passes for profound depth and knowledge.

And ironically, those cases indeed seem to be revealed in ATTITUDE to the conflicting beliefs.

Isn’t it always the MADMAN who strives to CONVINCE, CONQUER the world to his side?

Isn’t it indeed the MADMAN whose the loudest?

As though he secretly hoped that in his ability to convince others — he would actually be able to convince himself? And would perhaps be able to acquit himself?

 

Either way, leaving observations about society aside

If the default response to the discordance, the jarring of worldviews and beliefs — was that of yet DEEPENING one’s RESEARCH, DEEPENING one’s understanding, of both sides mind you, and from more angles and more sources and more perspectives — would that not solve a lot of problems?

Would that not prevent the utterly unconstructive feedback loops and polarisation and emergence of insulating self-reinforcing bubbles?

Is this even so extraordinary to ask — for man to respond to challenge by EDUCATING themselves more?

We had became way too angry, ignorant and intellectually lazy.

 

The only response to discordant views is more DEPTH and balance

Learning more, thinking deeper, working harder,

And teaching more, encouraging more thoughtfulness, and incentivising work.