"Insult"

"The real function of a spiritual friend is to insult you." From a great 20th century Buddhist teacher, Choggyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

We are very sensitive today, always on the lookout for slings or slights, troubled mainly by taking ourselves too seriously, and thus exposing our fragile egos. Should we have the courage, and it takes a lot, a remedy is at hand, provided by the Rinpoche. We all need someone to aid us in periodically re-orienting ourselves, to give us a whack upside the head and tell us to get less self-absorbed---the "insult that isn't." This speaks to the Buddhist's desire to eliminate all illusions, the most damaging of which those we have constructed, mostly unconsciously, to protect us from knowledge of our own shallow egos and of the real world, and to make us seem bigger and better than we are.

The quote exemplifies the role that each person can play for another in continual spiritual development, which is how the Rinpoche meant it. But I think it goes farther than spiritual development, and includes other aspects of personal development. Friends or relatives, or even a stranger, can help us overcome our unwarranted assumptions and views, false beliefs, and exaggerated sense of superiority or self righteousness. They are our mirrors, and we ignore them at our cost, as I learned rather painfully.

I recall going to a group meditation on compassion many years ago. After finishing I was talking to a woman who had immediately launched into a vitriolic condemnation of another woman in the group she did not like. Much like this woman, I was similar in my failure to understand that there is no necessary correlation between experiencing a fine compassion-oriented (or any other) meditation and actually being compassionate. For much of my life I could claim with great pride that I had read this many spiritual books, gone to this many retreats, and heard this many spiritual leaders. I was sure I understood all that Buddhism and Zen had to teach me. I did not see for decades that the only thing that matters is whether I had changed my behavior because of what I had seen and heard, whether, in fact, I had become a better person in the eyes of others. I could have learned something from the woman's comments and demeanor---she was a mirror for me, but I saw nothing.

Living with the Rinpoche's quote means giving up any attachment to a fixed "self," accepting instead the fluidity of spiritual and personal movement that requires constant attention and reformulation. But no progress will be made without fearlessness, and without eliminating the reflexive actions of "counter-punching," a regrettable tactic common among people whose egos are stuck on themselves. We will hear from our "insulting" friend news we might prefer to be left buried under a ten-ton
stone---news that often elicits from us an unpleasant reaction as we try desperately to protect our cherished illusions. Counter-punching is all about defense, rigidity, closure, protection and rejection, exemplifying what the fine American Buddhist nun and teacher Pema Chodron calls the "frozen mind."

Having no one to aid us in snapping out of our illusions means that we continue to believe what we think about ourselves and about the world, and we are monumentally, and highly emotionally, attached to these beliefs. Even the thought of asking someone close to us to expose our false beliefs is a non-starter. After all, we can "easily" live in denial. When is the last time (if ever) any of us really opened up this way? Even if we want to, what friend or relative would take the chance of getting the crap kicked out of him or her for being honest with us? Unknowingly, we have broadcast our stories (illusions) so effectively that no sensible person would trust us to behave properly.

Hearing the "insults" is a major challenge for any of us, changing even harder. But it is the price we have to pay to REALLY move spiritually and practically. For those willing to "take the empty-handed leap into the void," the result is openness, expansion, flexibility, inner peace, compassion and love, and a connection with the world as it really is (not as we want it to be) that any Taoist would delight in.

The great American spiritual philosopher, Ken Wilbur, says that climbing the spiritual ladder is impossible until we have started dealing with our demon, including our illusions and attachments. We can easily pretend that we are making spiritual progress, as I did, but that's all it is---pretend. Another illusion. Until we go after the demons with "a little help from our friends," we are fakes, whether this is in spiritual matters or practical living ones.

Religion and Society II

In the last post I started the conversation with one aspect of religion’s role in society---as a cohesive force and a repository of moral strictures and order, recognizing that there were some unpleasant aspects to this order. I ended with a reference to the societal changes we have see since the 60’s, in particular elevation of the cult of individualism to pre-eminence, what I see as a major factor in the disintegration of shared moral values in the US.

The cult of the individual emphasizes the person and what he wants above all. If it feels good, it is good, and the impact on others is irrelevant. As a moral system unique unto himself, the individualist sees a shared moral order as one detrimental to his well being, as it asks for behavioral restraint in the form of curbing self interest, a distasteful concept to the individualist.

As the great Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, “A stable society is achieved not by balancing opposing forces but by conscious self-limitation….” The latter is a function of healthy societies, but is anathema to the individual concerned only with himself. We are living in a societal setting in which the shared healthy strictures (granted some were not) that once bound us together, whether formal and informal, are coming undone. Much of that seems due to the failure of self-limitation.

As shared moral order is lost, social anomie sets in. The word means normlessness (Emile Durkheim) and implies social instability and lethargy, which I think are increasing in Western society. At the same time, religious connections, including church/synagogue attendance and belief in God, and the moral order supplied by those, have weakened. I am not saying that the decline in religious conviction or in attendance at services themselves have directly caused the anomie, although that may be the case, or even the reverse. I am saying the rise of the individual at the expense of the group coupled with the decline in religious observance have at least contributed to a dissolving social entity.

Some argue that even if religions were a necessary outcome of human existence in early history, they are of no consequence today. In their view, secular associations will fill the void and be a source of moral order once religions are gone and humanistic principles are in play. But there are a couple of hurdles to overcome with this view. One is that the only examples we have of large-scale secular, “religion-free” systems were the communist ones of the 20^th century, and those look quite bad in retrospect. A second is that today’s Western humanists/secularists grew up in a Judeo-Christian ethical system, and cannot easily divorce their humanist leanings from those offered by that system. In other words, such folks can certainly act morally, in their mind due to  following humanist principles. Perhaps. But it is also distinctly possible that they are acting with moral correctness because of the Judeo-Christian culture within which they were raised, even if they reject the ethic.

A third hurdle is that most of the proponents of eliminating religion are atheists, understandably enough. But they are also part of the camp that has elevated the individual to near deity-like status. Thus, secular associations are very likely to fall prey to that very cult of the individual, the dictates of which overwhelm loyalty to any shared group standards, thus undermining group cohesion and at higher levels, societal cohesion. Without self-restraint, group cohesion is impossible, humanist principles notwithstanding.

A fourth hurdle is moral relativism, a view related to the cult of the individual. Moral relativism says that nothing is fixed and each person must decide for himself what are moral actions and what are not, and that those often switch places whenever the person wants a different outcome. Such a person is obligated to no consistency, and he is the sole determinant of what is right for him, meaning he can never make a moral mistake---an upside-down “moral” view if there ever was one. The views of others, as would be the case within a religious group, matter not one bit. An island unto himself, in his mind he is accountable to no one.

A possible fifth hurdle is that secular associations, while often beneficial, usually lack one of the three critical aspects of religion. The three, as defined by Haidt, are belonging, doing and believing, and secular associations can do quite well on the first two but not well on the third. Is it possible that the transcendent meaning derived from one’s religious beliefs is a key ingredient for adherence to a self-limiting moral code?

So the biggest question of all---Is there something (or more than one thing) that religion possesses that enables it to offer for its members a solid sense of connection and proper moral behavior based in part on voluntary restrictions in behavior? As we all know, many religions in the past and some today are not exactly exemplars of quality moral behavior. Nonetheless, the question still stands.

Are we morally better off with religion and its flaws than without it?

 

 

Religion and Society

Every society we know about, from primitive to highly sophisticated, has religion. Neo-atheists believe that religious belief is a parasitic behavior that is resource intensive and of no value at all to the people in a particular society, or to any society. In fact, the Neo-atheists believe that religion is actively harmful to individuals and societies, thus drawing the conclusion that religion in all its forms should be done away with.

However, recent research is leading to a different idea. Religion is now seen by many anthropologists as functional and critical to a society’s survival. The argument is that religions arose among early humans in part because certain pattern recognition modules developed in the brain that were beneficial to survival. The modules, which we still have, did indeed help with survival in primitive and dangerous settings, but they also meant we would sometimes see agency where none existed---think the coiled vine startling us because its pattern is similar to that of a snake. Carry that a bit further and you can see that thunder and lightning may also be seen as agency---the gods are angry.

The other part of the development of religion is that the research now indicates that religion is cohesive for groups, and that this cohesion is partly the result of the sacralization of events, actions, and beliefs. This sharing of sacredness binds people together, which has a positive outcome for the group’s survival and, if some recent studies are correct, for its happiness. If the group’s gods and norms condemn divisive or selfish behaviors the group becomes more cohesive by promoting “cooperation and trust within the group.” (The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt)

The group that suppressed self-interest and selfishness within the group likely fared better than ones that did not. Specific religious practices conveyed little in the way of competitive advantage for individuals. But these practices may have enabled one group to compete more effectively with other groups, a process known in anthropology as group (as opposed to individual) selection, a concept Darwin himself had explored, and one which is currently receiving considerable attention from anthropologists.

“OK, you say---so what? I’m an atheist and will remain one and all this stuff about how religion developed in early human societies is meaningless to me.” (Disclosure: I fall into the atheistic camp, but weakly). Fine, but there’s more to the story. We have seen secular systems (most prominently, the large-scale communist efforts in the 20^th century) that were radically opposed to religion, devoting considerable resources and propaganda to eliminating it, all to no avail. Not only did their efforts to eradicate religion fail, the political systems themselves collapsed.

Most efforts to eradicate religion as a concept are relatively recent. Certainly since time immemorial individual religions have tried to overcome other religions, sometimes by war and sometimes by proselytizing. But nowhere and at no time has religion been completely eliminated. Atheist philosophers and scientists, like David Dennett and Richard Dawkins, respectively, are in the forefront of that effort, but certainly not advocating violence. Their works focus on showing how bad religions have been---a view that has some merit, but which is not relevant to my comments.

Now let me make a leap. I think that society, used in the general sense and including all individual societies from the very beginning to now, had to automatically produce religion. The philosopher Thomas Nagel, in his fine book, Mind and Cosmos, suggested that consciousness had to arise spontaneously because its foundations were embedded in the very fabric of matter/energy. I argue the same is true of religion---it had to arise, and it did, everywhere. Without it human society would not have developed.

Now one more leap. Like all religions, primitive or sophisticated, the main “Western” religions---Catholic, Protestant, Jewish---have emphasized shared moral structures within their groups. Since in recent history these three religions’ moral views were relatively similar, for a long time people in the US experienced a common understanding of moral order, with the concomitant social orderliness that went with that. Certainly not all aspects of that order were good, but it offered regularity, a strong sense of security, and a relatively clear picture of one’s obligations to others.

Then the 60’s arrived, along with a strong aversion to authority, hierarchy, tradition and of course religion. Intimately connected to these dislikes was a glorification of the individual, what amounted to a cult of the individual. The aversions and glorification contributed to the dissolution of the old shared moral order. As said, some of the change was definitely needed, but as usual with revolutions, the baby was thrown out with the bath water, resulting in significant undesirable societal outcomes.

More next post.

Trust and Interpersonal Conflict

“Are you trustworthy?” is a question likely to elicit unpleasant reactions from many people because in their view of themselves it should be self-evident that they are trustworthy. Unfortunately, such self-evidence isn’t always visible. As I have said in other posts, we all have stories that reflect favorably on us that are at least partially false, and sometimes totally so. The discussion of tolerance a few posts back illustrated just one. Trustworthiness is yet another.

We all know how important trust is both for society in general and for ourselves in particular. People we can trust, on whom we can rely, are clearly deserving of deep appreciation. Seeing the value of this trait, most of us aspire to be trustworthy, and in many ways we achieve this goal. But there is one area in which we often fail, and that involves interpersonal conflict. Before pursuing this, let me define my term.

There are many definitions of trust, but I like this one: it is the felt sense that you can rely on another person to behave in a positive and consistent manner while gently and respectfully holding your vulnerabilities. Being vulnerable and having the complete sense that you will not be harmed is the essence of trust. This idea is conveyed nicely by Duane C. Tway Jr., in his dissertation, A Construct of Trust. He says that trust is “…the state of readiness for unguarded interaction with someone or something.” The key of course is “unguarded.”

Vulnerability, and the trust it can engender, is the ground upon which a quality relationship is built. Clearly, then, trust comes from showing people that you have their well being at heart. That does not mean you do not have your own interests, nor does it mean we do not disagree. It means you will handle my well-being with the greatest gentleness and sensitivity even (especially) when you are most upset with me---doing so demonstrates a person’s commitment to one of the true measures of character. No matter how difficult our disagreement, trust tells me that I can have complete faith that that you will not sacrifice me to expediency, to the need to prevail, or to the need to punish.

Good enough, but there is a caveat. Many people can act in a trustworthy manner if little or nothing is at stake---that is, if they are not under stress. Add stress to the situation and we often default from content conflict to relationship (bad) conflict, a sure crusher of trust. People in bad conflict may like or love each other, but under stress they seldom can be trusted to control their behavior, thereby putting a damper on the quality of the overall relationship. Anger, denial, sarcasm, the silent treatment, interruptions, data dumps, mis-representations, put-downs, and outright lies are just a few of the damaging conflict tactics I have seen in my personal life and with clients. These all serve one purpose---for me to prevail over you, or you over me. A dandy basis for a quality relationship.

Most people I have known, including hundreds of clients, are nice and intelligent folks---and they sincerely want to have respectful and quality relationships. Sadly, it is these very people who resort to the tactics which undermine trust. When confronted with the contradiction, they often heatedly deny what they are doing, deny that what they are doing could possibly adversely impact their spouse, life partner, or friend, or accept what they are doing but argue that they really have no choice. Of these, outright denial of the use of damaging tactics is the most common that I have seen, although the others are not uncommon.

Relationship conflict and the tactics used in its expression damage trust because one or both parties has no interest (at the moment at least) in the well-being of the other. In fact, beyond failing to protect the other’s best interest, there is an active desire to harm the other. Among clients this is vigorously denied, but the message is clear. Seeking to prevail through any damaging tactic is clearly harmful to the individual and diminishes trust. As people engage in relationship conflict, over time even any residual trust is lost, meaning that even if the people (or employees) stay in the game, the overall relationship may be irreparably damaged.

To the degree that we act in this way with friends, relatives or colleagues is the same degree to which our view of ourselves as being trustworthy is false. Such acting removes much (if not most) of the possibilities of having a truly outstanding relationship. Since most of us do desire to have such relationships, the path is clear. That path demands that we acquire the habit of regularly and rigorously critiquing our stories and, for this post’s specific purposes, the story of our trustworthiness most of all. But that is clearly not enough. The path demands further that we act on our new understanding and rid ourselves of the falsenesses in our existence and relationships.

In a very significant way, our happiness and that of those around us depends hugely on whether we can develop trust, which is impossible while certain stories are held inviolate. If you ever find yourself saying, “Oh, I really don’t have any false stories,” I recommend you go lie down until the feeling goes away. Everybody got ‘em.

 

Conflict Ain't What It's Cracked Up To Be, Or Is It?

I have a great idea. Let’s have a fight about whatever, and use as much anger and disrespect as possible. Cool idea. Most normal folks would think my suggestion is a joke. But it isn’t at all. It’s exactly the way most conflicts go in our society---negative and demeaning.

But conflict is simply disagreement, which is neither good nor bad, so what’s the problem?  To answer this we need to look a little closer. There are two aspects to conflict---content and relationship. Content conflict is often very healthy or even enjoyable, as when a friend disagrees with me over whether we have free will. If we stay in this mode, all is likely to be well even if the disagreement is significant, but….

Bad things arise when our conversation becomes relationship conflict, which is an “I-win-you-lose” posture, just as I mentioned in the last post on tolerance. No matter what, I will win, using any tactic, especially anger, interruptions, mis-representations, outright lies, guilt, and so forth. The content that started the conversation is now totally irrelevant, and the goal is for my emotions to trump your emotions. Thus, relationship conflict is nearly always demeaning and dis-respectful, and produces very bad interpersonal outcomes. Watching two people of differing political parties is about as unpleasant an experience as I can imagine. Being partisans (true believers), they have no objectivity at all and seek only to prevail over, preferably crushing the other person, who usually has the same style and goal. Each justifies his mis-behavior by claiming correctness and moral rightness.

Our poor behavior in conflict settings has been made worse by two regrettable societal trends, the first of which is that everyone has “good” reasons for what they do. Certainly people have reasons for their thoughts, emotions and actions. But whether the reasons are good or useful, bad or harmful, or neutral is not exactly determined by the person giving the reasons. Simply, our views of ourselves are notoriously unreliable since we give ourselves maximum credit for goodness, a fiercely held but at least partially false story! The quality of our reasons is determined by our spouse, partner, family, friends, colleagues, the justice system, the psychiatric community, or anyone who is impacted by our actions. In other words, others play a large role  in determining if our reasons have any reasonableness, fairness, or utility to them. Failure to see this means more unresolved and unpleasant conflict.

Imagine I tell myself that my motives, or reasons, for letting my wife know that she is eating badly (she really is not!) are solely to help her improve her health and live longer. My wife, however, does not see it at all the way I do. She considers my comments to be insulting and controlling, and possibly even self-serving. I am aghast. But humans are multi-motive creatures, and my motives may very well have been partly for her health and partly because I am embarrassed by her eating habits.

Almost never does a person do something for one and only one reason. The challenge is that many of our less admirable motives are hidden in the unconscious, which is why I heatedly deny my wife’s assertion about my motives. All I know in my conscious mind, wherein I am a legend of propriety, is that I am concerned about her well-being. My unconscious motive—being ashamed of her eating habits—never saw the light of day, but was clearly conveyed to her by my non-verbal signals, which I had no idea I was sending. Existing in a self-sustaining story of good motives, I cannot accept her version. Clearly my relationship with my wife will suffer for my illusions.

The second societal element is the inane statement that “your-feelings-are-valid.” This has no meaning at all since the word valid connects an event to a standard, as in “the measurements are valid.” That is, the measurements have an obvious and demonstrable connection to reality. Peoples’ feelings are neither valid nor invalid---they simply are and can be used for great good---Ghandi---or great ill---Hitler. The word valid was introduced to give faux scientific weight to the idea that your feelings and their expression were an unalloyed good. This “primacy of emotions” view and the idea that one’s motives are unilaterally “good” have caused huge problems between people and in society generally. We have been encouraged to express our feelings without any thought to the adverse impacts on others, or even on ourselves. The idea is expressed in the statement “If it feels good, it is good---go right ahead and do it!” This view is connected to the sense of entitlement that I have every right to emotionally trash someone who disagrees with me. Since our story is we must be right, it is easy to “validate” our highly unpleasant actions, no matter how much harm is done. Destructive conflict in spades.

When we think our reasons for doing things are naturally good or that our feelings are valid, there can be no good outcomes for others or even for ourselves, if we differ. These two tactics “allow” us to justify whatever behavior we want when we are in conflict, no matter how disrespectful or abusive. These tactics emphasize that I prevail---I get to do what I want because it feels good, and any complaints you have about my behavior are your problem. What is very clear is that content conflict involves thinking and processing at some objective levels. Relationship conflict, on the other hand, is all about not thinking---pure, ungoverned emotion on the run, and you had best not be in my way!

More on conflict next time.

 

 

 

The Myth of Tolerance

OK, maybe I overstated things a bit with this opening. But then again, maybe not.

How does tolerance that isn’t tolerance show up in today’s society?

Everyone knows that people see the world differently from others, leading to different beliefs and practices. Natural though such differences are, the outcome of their intersection is often unpleasant at best, and horrifying at worst as each party seeks to prevail over the other---the classic zero-sum game.

Reflecting the “I-win, you-lose” philosophy, some people engage in hostile encounters with those they disagree with or dislike. Additionally, and adding a distinctly unhelpful component to the animosity, they associate with others who feel as they do. The group then self-righteously congratulates itself on its wisdom and moral uprightness, further cementing the separation from those “others,” and giving yet more impetus to the hostility. The political differences between left and right are a classic example of both the zero-sum-game mentality and the animosity.

OK, so what about the myth of tolerance?

I know lots of folks who believe that they are tolerant, but they have a peculiar meaning for the word and its attendant behavior. Individuals, groups, and issues they like or agree with are accorded tolerance. The views they disagree with, or the people who they dislike, are actively and often hostilely attacked, and are accorded no tolerance. The silliness, and more to the point danger, of this view is easily demonstrated. Imagine a man on the right who is a hunter saying he is tolerant of the NRA. Or, imagine a person on the left who says he is tolerant of gay marriage.

When confronted with the challenges to their positions, folks assert that those people they are castigating, often with rude ad hominem characterizations and comments, are wrong or, worse yet, evil, and thus deserving of punishment. That means they can claim moral superiority (“I am tolerant”) while acting intolerantly. The principle of tolerance is thus not a principle at all, but simply a cloak covering one’s prejudicial nakedness. The problem, of course, is that the cloak is transparent, a fact of which these folks are blissfully ignorant.

So, we have tolerance of concept bound up with intolerance of behavior, a position held only with outright denial of the hypocrisy and considerable cognitive dissonance. It is my sense that the latter is clearly visible in such “tolerant intolerants” when their rage surfaces, which it nearly always does. A person cannot live “lunch free” in cognitive dissonance, and rage is often the outcome of the attempted repression. The dissonance is getting to them, but the denial obstructs a healthy resolution. Naturally, that rage must be directed outward.

More usefully, and certainly more humanely, tolerance means being able to accept, if not like or admire, the views, behavior or life-style of another person or group. We may actually disagree heartily with them. But we accord them the respect of real tolerance, not the pretend variety, in our discussions and any time we are talking about them. The most important point for us to keep in mind is that I may have a level of intolerance (it is a continuum for all but lunatic extremists) for an idea or a life-style, and yet treat the person with that idea or life-style with the greatest respect. When we conflate the person with the idea---your belief is evil and thus so are you!!---we do huge personal and societal damage. When we can separate those, we have a chance at real tolerance, conversation and respect.

Tolerance as I am using it does not come easily. It requires discipline and practice, often for a very long time because our disrespectful behavior patterns are ingrained after so many years of facilitation. Naturally, those folks mentioned above who falsely see themselves as paragons of virtue see no need for change. They will continue in their destructive ways, both for themselves and for society. But others want sincerely to be consistent and respectful, and to embody tolerance in the most humane way. Practice is difficult and nearly endless. It must be done in every situation in which we start to see another person or group in a negative light. The most helpful way to deal with this thought is to accept its existence---trying to deny its presence is self-defeating. After acknowledging, we can channel our thoughts to a more positive view of the person or group. The key is that this simple exercise must be done hundreds, but more likely thousands, of times in order to begin changing our views and adverse habits. It also helps if we dissociate ourselves from those with negativity, the “tolerant intolerants.”

After a while, tolerance and respect become natural and second nature, just as the opposite was true earlier. We then move more closely into compassion for others, no matter what our levels of disagreement. They know they can trust us not to harm them, as though, regardless of differences, we hold their well-being with great care in the palm of our hand.

Is tolerance a myth?

Open and Closed Systems, Political Belief, and (In)Civility

Whether a system is open or closed refers to whether it exchanges information with its environment. Systems can refer to almost anything, including physical ones, such as chemical reactions, or more complex ones, like organizations, human societies, or the human body. A closed system is one that does not interact with its environment, like an unopened can of pop, while an open one does.

Humans are generally open systems. Our bodies and minds interact with the outside environment. Those interactions can be mainly physical, as when we inhale and exhale, exchanging gases. Or they can be interactional, as when we engage with others, which could include boxing or conversation.

While our bodies cannot help but be open systems, our minds (and emotions) may not always be open. When we strongly need to believe something, or to have a particular outcome, often only information that accords with our view or goal will be allowed in. Studies show that this attitude, known as confirmation bias, is wide-spread in Western societies. In fact, among the most important studies have been those in which political partisans of both sides held verifiably false views about the other side. Even when the correct information was provided, not only did the partisans reject the information, they actually hardened into their original incorrect ones.

A classic example that is in part responsible for the highly unpleasant behavior of some people today is the absolute belief that their political party has a lock on moral and practical correctness. This view is clearly wrong, for the simple reason that nothing in life is perfect or even near it. Normally sane people will accept this latter aspect in nearly all things…except where it involves their political views. The latter, being of a MUST HAVE nature, means that such folks are off-balance. They are not in accord with the way the world is. They have constructed a scenario that is false (their political party is just as flawed as the opponents’) but which cannot be acknowledged. They will suffer anxiety, frustration and often considerable anger because they will encounter others who do not share their rigid view. Naturally, those others must be punished severely for their “false” beliefs, the antithesis of a civil exchange. Interestingly, often the people seeing their party as nearly perfect are the very ones who argue for more civility. They are oblivious to the hypocrisy---the apotheosis of a closed human system.

All such views are held with death-grip intensity (or should I say “insanity”). The folks holding them could no more give an example of their party’s views being incorrect, or even incomplete, than they could cut off a finger. Leftists give have many examples of bad behavior on the right, and the latter does the same to the left. Both fail utterly to see that they have actually condemned themselves and their party, which usually does precisely the same thing for which they are criticizing the other party. Even when I encounter folks who tell me they are open-minded, I find that they would not know the meaning of the word if it was eating them alive by inches. They never question the legitimacy of their own views, values or actions, which are held absolutely. This rigidity then defines the barriers to any information that is not in accord with what the person believes and wants to be true.

The actions and motives of their elected officials are defended nearly to the death, even though a balanced appreciation of any position or action and its consequences might easily show incompleteness and mistakes, if not outright lies and manipulation. Partisans are more than capable of such criticism of the other party, often carried to highly irrational levels by their closed-system “thinking,” and nearly totally incapable of it regarding their own party or representatives.

An open-system’s posture requires the processing of information that may be distasteful and the willingness to examine it in a truly fair light, an action virtually impossible for true believers. The really open and healthy human being not only accepts and deals fairly with disconfirming information, she actually seeks out such information as a way to learn and grow. She has no fear of challenging information, and thus finds it very easy to see others’ views and to be compassionate even when she disagrees. Most of us want things neat and tidy, and certain, really certain. This leaves us in a constant state of fear that such tidiness, a fabrication impossible to achieve in the real world, will unravel, which it nearly always does. True-believer partisanship is all about fear, evidenced in large measure by the amount of emotion present.

Once we MUST HAVE a view prevail or an outcome result, we have closed ourselves to vital information. We have become prisoners of the need for certainty, with the result that our well being will be compromised, as will that of others with whom we interact (unless they agree with us). We are attempting to create a defined order inside ourselves---and often with others of a like mind---that is contradicted by reality, an effort that means bad outcomes both personally and societally.

It is not that people disagree, which is normal. It is that they disagree disrespectfully, trashing the others and often lying about or mis-representing into the bargain to bolster their position. Incivility does not arise because people differ in their political views. It arises because one person, or both, cannot stand the thought that another has a different view. I am not suggesting that all views have equal weight. It is clear that some are more or less correct than others, and certainly some are dead wrong as indicated above. The trouble is that political true believers cannot conceive that someone with a different view could be even partially correct. In this regrettable scenario, my view is not only correct---it is also sacred, and that is really scary because it means only one thing---destroy the other’s position and, metaphorically, the person holding it. It is insufficient to simply counter the argument, a legitimate action, but ad hominem attacks must be made. The other must be demeaned and humiliated. Try and reconcile this with a culture of civility. Or a culture of objective thought.

This gargantuan craziness (let’s all pretend that we on our side are rational and the other guys not only insane, but evil as well) will only begin to recede when the left holds its own accountable, and not for being inadequately left, and the right does the same, and not for being inadequately right. This accountability does not require a person to change allegiance to a party or set of political views. It does require that we acknowledge within our party, among our preferred office holders and, often worst of all, TV and radio commentators, the existence of mistakes, incivility, anger, mis-representation, lies, manipulation, assertions of moral superiority, and, not least, negative labeling. It further requires that we make an honest effort to change those destructive elements, both in ourselves and in others.

We must have the courage to be a real open system, permeable to news that we may not like but which is invaluable for real thinking and for personal growth. This may be too much for many people, but it is one of the very few real options for a better society. We can only hope that some will have the courage to start debunking their and their party’s received liturgy of perfection and begin anew to really think.

As William James said, “A great many people think they are thinking when all they are doing is rearranging their prejudices.”