Tomorrow We Dance To Freedom

Jettison Ideological Boundaries

Posted on:

Generally speaking it’s difficult to fall inside the bounds of a single ideological camp. We shouldn’t feel compelled to first validate that our opinions are consistent with a specific mainstream philosophical group. Our emphasis should remain fixated on enhancing individual expression, not drowning it in lies to appease this or that faction. When we bury our personal beliefs just to fit in, to easily assimilate into a collective we’re encouraging the demeaning of the individual self.

How often have you just gone along with a viewpoint because it was easier to agree with the group than confront this or that aspect of a cherished belief system? Complex issues don’t always fit neatly into a classification. Messy opinions, the non-knee jerk responses that are the result of deductive reasoning can’t possibly be shoved into a box filled with ‘spin-twisted’ position points.

When we come to a conclusion about where we stand on this or that issue we don’t first check with a talking head politician to see if our view is consistent with the accepted ideology of the group. To consult with our own version of the Maoist ‘little red book’ before reaching a conclusion on an issue would be tantamount to surrendering our individual identity – a form of mental slavery.

Honestly, do you really believe that complex human beings are finely tuned singularly focused entities?

We’ll never entertain divergent viewpoints inconsistent with a declared belief system. This may be the case if we use our more primitive machines as behavioral guides. Predictability may be a desired trait in linear tuned deterministic systems but being endowed with an indomitable spirit is what separates us from stasis bound task-oriented machines.

Advanced dynamic systems are allowed to explore unbounded behaviors within continuously adjusting developmental limits. Maintaining a state of homeostasis within chaotic systems generally entails identifying a broad set of behaviors consistent with the multisystem entity. What it doesn’t entail is the simplistic enslaving of thought processes that conform to inflexible rules. Complex systems, and this includes organic sentient beings are incapable of blindly adhering to a proliferation of intrusive rules that limit intellectual inquiry.

Societal group thought may intrude upon our natural proclivity to express ourselves in unique ways. Wanting to belong, we seek out friends with similar ideological world views. The trick is to not drown our individuality in a friendship or group. We may satisfy our innate tendency to belong – the primate’s imperative to bond to a clan but in the process sacrifice our inquiring minds on an altar of efficiency. Limiting the breadth and depth of our inquisitiveness just too comfortably conform to a well-defined faith is to reject the possibility that the societal dynamic can adapt to a continually changing universe.

Please don’t misinterpret the use of the term faith. Aligning oneself with the creeds of a political or religious organization are both genuine expressions of faith.

Sacrificing our identity; the essence of who we are just to avoid conflict is disingenuous. Healthy societies thrive on conflict. Ideas generate broadening perspectives. Let’s not inhibit the free flow of ideas across many boundaries. Better yet jettison the boundaries that are transforming us into predictable simpletons.