It’s a bit hard for you; I get it. You look around to see a world of wounded ideas, and you think, “Something needs to be done.”
But about what? Having the “world” agree with you? Would you have the world “adopt” your view? You realize that’s just not going to happen, don’t you? At best the “world” is more adhesive than cohesive. Regardless of the seeming like-mindedness of groups that appear to stick together because of similarities or shared views, eventually most, if not all, thought-collectives reveal themselves as adhesive conjunctions. No thinking person ever fully coheres to the thoughts of others as they express themselves in behaviors. General ideas might be cohesively bound, but specific ideas can only be adhesively bound.
You’ll want examples, of course. Take a look at one of the most significant bodies, the American Congress. Three groups operate there, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Independents—four if you are inclined to include the current (2019) group that identifies as Social Democrats. The groups apparently exist because of a common purpose based on a set of ideals originally meant to address injuries. But ask members of them to define both the common purpose and ideals, and you’ll find only a connection that isn’t much more than an old piece of adhesive tape wrapped around flexible skin.
So, you get a cut, run to the medicine cabinet, find the gauze and adhesive tape or a band aid, and wrap the wound to expedite its healing. The days progress; the wound begins to heal—so much so that you even forget you had a wound. As each day of healing passes, you observe your bandage; you need to change it. The old bandage frays, bends with a flexible skin, gets wet during even the simple act of hand-washing, and shows some accumulating dirt. If you were to leave it unattended, it would detach from the wound completely and fail to fulfill its original purpose—healing a fading or forgotten wound.
See any similarities to the members of any Congress, any group of likeminded ideologues? The reason for the initial assemblage changes with time. Newer members, recruited to replace those worn out by time, find the old bandages ineffective, frayed at the edges and dirtied by contact with the real world. The hurt of one generation isn’t fully felt by the following one; the next generation did not personally experience the wound itself, but rather an historical account of it, and maybe an account subjected to revisionism. The next generation adheres to the bandaging protocol, dutifully covering a wound that has changed, maybe even disappeared.
Do you adhere to a group to which you believed you had an original cohesive connection? As you look at your adherence, do you see fraying? Do you think today’s Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are driven to heal old wounds that no longer exist? You can put the questions in any context perceived as a “wound”: The definition of life, the relationship among nations, the notion of property, the extent of personal freedom, the role of government, or any other context that serves as a backdrop for political "wounds." Would it be wise for each of us to consider whether or not our sticking to ideologies is a matter of cohesion or adhesion?
But about what? Having the “world” agree with you? Would you have the world “adopt” your view? You realize that’s just not going to happen, don’t you? At best the “world” is more adhesive than cohesive. Regardless of the seeming like-mindedness of groups that appear to stick together because of similarities or shared views, eventually most, if not all, thought-collectives reveal themselves as adhesive conjunctions. No thinking person ever fully coheres to the thoughts of others as they express themselves in behaviors. General ideas might be cohesively bound, but specific ideas can only be adhesively bound.
You’ll want examples, of course. Take a look at one of the most significant bodies, the American Congress. Three groups operate there, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Independents—four if you are inclined to include the current (2019) group that identifies as Social Democrats. The groups apparently exist because of a common purpose based on a set of ideals originally meant to address injuries. But ask members of them to define both the common purpose and ideals, and you’ll find only a connection that isn’t much more than an old piece of adhesive tape wrapped around flexible skin.
So, you get a cut, run to the medicine cabinet, find the gauze and adhesive tape or a band aid, and wrap the wound to expedite its healing. The days progress; the wound begins to heal—so much so that you even forget you had a wound. As each day of healing passes, you observe your bandage; you need to change it. The old bandage frays, bends with a flexible skin, gets wet during even the simple act of hand-washing, and shows some accumulating dirt. If you were to leave it unattended, it would detach from the wound completely and fail to fulfill its original purpose—healing a fading or forgotten wound.
See any similarities to the members of any Congress, any group of likeminded ideologues? The reason for the initial assemblage changes with time. Newer members, recruited to replace those worn out by time, find the old bandages ineffective, frayed at the edges and dirtied by contact with the real world. The hurt of one generation isn’t fully felt by the following one; the next generation did not personally experience the wound itself, but rather an historical account of it, and maybe an account subjected to revisionism. The next generation adheres to the bandaging protocol, dutifully covering a wound that has changed, maybe even disappeared.
Do you adhere to a group to which you believed you had an original cohesive connection? As you look at your adherence, do you see fraying? Do you think today’s Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are driven to heal old wounds that no longer exist? You can put the questions in any context perceived as a “wound”: The definition of life, the relationship among nations, the notion of property, the extent of personal freedom, the role of government, or any other context that serves as a backdrop for political "wounds." Would it be wise for each of us to consider whether or not our sticking to ideologies is a matter of cohesion or adhesion?
RSS Feed