"Almost nothing is about what you think it is about--including you."
With the possible exception of those human encounters that Fritz Peris calls "intimacy," all human communications have deeply embedded and profound hidden agendas. Most of the conversation at the top can be assumed to be bullshit of one variety or another.
An idealist usually cannot acknowledge his own bullshit, because it is in the nature of his "ism" that he must pretend it does not exist. In fact, I should say that anyone who is devoted to an "ism"--Fascism, Communism, Capital-ism--probably has a seriously defective crap-detector. This is especially true of those devoted to "patriotism." Santha Rama Rau has called patriotism a squalid emotion. I agree. Mainly because I find it hard to escape the conclusion that those most enmeshed in it hear no bullshit whatever in its rhetoric, and as a consequence are extremely dangerous to other people. If you doubt this, I want to remind you that murder for murder, General Westmoreland makes Vito Genovese look like a Flower Child.
First Level of Reading
I understand the first paragraph to mean, that most forms of human connection whether in person or online, have hidden agendas behind them. Most conversations in groups are also susceptible to forms of "untruths." I understand the second paragraph to mean, that anyone following in an "ism" will be unable to see these "untruths" clearly, and that this is due to the biases that tend to cloud that person's judgement. The people who follow in these "isms" will then be unable to spot any "untruths" from their side no matter how dangerous it can be for others.
Second Level of Reading
In the first paragraph, it talks about how almost all forms of human interaction have some form of hidden agenda to them. Also, a lot of these conversations at the heart of these connections tend to have forms of "untruths" in them. In other words, with some exceptions, people who interact with each other will have some form of hidden motive behind it. For example, a person joining a Facebook group dedicated to "The Notebook" (I'm just using this as an example) because it is the "best movie ever made." As well as to surround themselves by people who also love and are very passionate about the movie.
In the second paragraph, it talks about how people who follow "ism" ideologies are less likely to find any flaw within their group and thus be unable to spot the "untruths" from the actual truth. Also, these people may also spread these "untruths" no matter how dangerous it may be to unsuspecting people that don't know any better. In other words, people who follow a community of like-minded people will find it hard to notice any flaws or any "untruths" within their own community. For example, (going off from my past example) one person who is on the fence about "The Notebook" will start to question some of the plot holes they noticed while watching the movie. More often than not some people will tend to get offended by this. "How dare they criticize something that I love, " or "they just don't understand the writing," etc. While the person may be making fair points, the people in the Facebook group will probably get defensive and be unable to see the person's view, because of their love/bias for "The Notebook."
The purpose of the assignment is to better understand how people are unable to spot the "untruths" from their beliefs due to unconscious bias.
The key question at the heart of the assignment is have you ever been guilty of being unable to see through the "untruths" of your (if you have any) biases?
Comments
Post a Comment