Politics. Religion. Beliefs. These are all components of topics I write on, if not the topics themselves. A good question to ask is “why?” Why do I write on these subjects? There is good reason these conversation pieces are forbidden at the dinner table. Beliefs mark the parameters of one’s mental blueprint. That is, beliefs are the vehicles used to navigate our comprehension of both social and personal reality.
It could be argued that a belief is not much more than a wager. Strangely enough, this wager liberates the mind – but, only to various degrees. This leap of faith lends to the structure of our mental framework. A stair must first be conceptualized before the climbing may proceed. It is not conceivable that a person can operate without holding certain prejudices pertaining to reality. Some choose apathy over understanding the implications concerning these crucial observations. The choice made to write on controversial topics does not extend from a personal conceit. I do not think I possess some ultimate perception that governs truth. Rather, I feel that social paradigms need agitation. This is my personal belief.
As with argument, I feel that intellectual conflict facilitates communication. Effective communication stimulates clarity within the collective. All too often, people settle on the convenience of a belief. Unfortunately, this behavior breeds stagnation. I find myself in shock at times when I confront someone’s belief only to watch them desperately cling to it without a shred of rational thought. I can sympathize with a person that has grown old with a particular set of conceptual schemes. Their neural pathways are reaching solidification. There is no known cure for this aside from prevention. Children are naturally open to fluid belief structures because they are engaged in the process of framing, for the first time, this mental construction. They seek pieces of understanding to map onto a working dynamic, as their elders did before them. Older people do not easily correct, whereas, the youth are resilient. The complication arises; however, when stagnant paradigms are taught to new generations.
Socialization often creates generational cycles within a culture. These cycles can be progressive, regressive, stagnant, or destructive in nature. Religious and political ideologies have rarely shown to be progressive. Only after experiencing a critical mass, does a society seek out resolutions to ratify change in these areas. Only when groups rise to confront systemic ideology can critical mass be reached. Sadly, war has often resulted in the past. Why? War is also the result of a belief paradigm – the belief that it provides a solution. Though, war practiced in defense is the only justifiable means of an acceptable end. Rarely do small militaries practice offense by attack larger advanced forces. This only happens out of extreme conceit, stupidity, and/or insanity. There is always a motivational belief structure at the helm in all cases. Some ideas are viral, and quickly consume the whole.
The average individual is commonly rendered helpless by massive social movements. They conform through fear and feel they must pick sides on the battlefield. Wait…they don’t pick sides at all, do they? Their allegiance is predestined in correlation with physical location. Billions of people have signed over their voice during times of war because choice was not evident.
It is my contention that until power is restored to the individual, authentic choice will always elude them. Some think that discussing these systemic ideologies is a futile, misdirected, and useless aim. “Leave people alone with their personal beliefs and let them have their freedom.” From my perspective, liberation is the idea…and it is necessary for real change. As thought the “Philosopher” of Plato’s Cave.