The higher calling is to abstract one’s self from strife and to the meta.
Saying positive things about your opponents is hard today. Though the gap between left and right is now a chasm, I think seeing the opposition through another lens is necessary. It could be framed broadly as the Left being concerned with liberty and Right concerned with standards and stability. Why can’t we have a bit of both?
But there’s some real hatred going on (or maybe just some intense dislike), people wishing for the others’ demise. This is all at the cost of our advancement as a civilization. Not only has polarization taken hold, denying us of good we can agree on, but we can’t even see each other from outside our groups. Why can’t we have agreement and disagreement separated into different abstract circles?
In Congress, we have the current struggle over infrastructure, which is an interesting need in that it was a done deal for a very brief moment a few weeks ago. One other thing we should agree on is the right to be left alone. Think of your most intimate or personal area of life being disturbed. Not going meta, wrongly getting in someone’s space without welcome. So great roads, transportation, and respect for human privacy.
You may say I’m a dreamer, but I don’t think anyone has actually named the problem. Going outside ourselves can create common purpose. I suggest going meta can make us more God-like, because we can appreciate our fellow man from outside time (our moment at least). This can also let us see that we all have frailties: “they know not what they are doing.”
My argument is not to isolate. It’s to find common circles of agreement. The meta transcends this for our needed dependencies already. We do need emotion and willingness to trust each other on the simple things. So we should ask, “what the meta in this situation?” A little self-reflection will let us grasp this emotionally. Self-knowledge can lead to greater humility and trust, not to mention faith in God and spontaneity. How were freedom movements of the past limited? The inability to ultimately abstract from conflict, whether outside or inside our group.
So let us look at ideas. Ideas are at their best the more meta, in my opinion. (War and conflict, not so meta.) Yes, we can come to a place where the discussion doesn’t meta anymore. But if you can, keep talking in a marketplace of ideas where your abstraction of conversation can gain converts.
Choose the discussion that fits your abstraction. A little more meta, please. Heal the fight.