Many modern multicultural societies suffer racial/class strife mainly due to educationally normative genotypic average psychometric normativity, namely the phenomenon that one genetic group is turned into the psychometric norm in education. This favors genetic groups with relatively higher average IQs as compared to the nationally normative genetic group; e.g. as relating to genetically Ashkenazi Jews in Germany and reversely disfavors genetic groups with relatively lower average IQs than the psychometrically nationally normative genetic group. This is so as the individual speed of institutionalized compulsory learning correlates highly with individual IQ.
In addition to tragic heritage of prejudice is this the main origin of racial/class strife as the culture of Capitalism is based on structural jealousy, the left are jealous of the relatively more wealthy for clearly being privileged by capitalism and the right are jealous of the relatively non-wealthy for being economically privileged by state. The left criticizes private taxation (private profit) while the right criticizes government taxation (state profit), yet these are circular and essentially irrational “leftrightist” carno-phallogocentric arguments as premised on structural jealousy indeed. It does not really matter what level of economic prosperity you have if you think that your purpose in life is to be jealous of fellow human persons as if a national economy was a zero-sum game and not as dynamically based on creative innovation, intuitive entrepreneurship and intelligent cooperation indeed.
Other irrational left-right conversations relate to whether economic oppression or statist oppression ought be favored over one another and structural oppression advocates will claim that “there is no choice” but to perpetuate institutionalized structural oppression. The point ought rather be to oppose structural oppression generally irrespective of being economic, social or statist. When we say that a certain form of structural oppression “is inevitable” have we typically not investigated the possibility of creative alternatives or even attempted to engage in creative, advanced resolution of advanced problems.
The whole notion of left and right is unhelpful, divisive and frankly irrational and reactionary. If we look back historically in hindsight will most agree that the left was historically right in certain regards and the right was certainly correct in yet other regards. Thus when “leftrightists” today claim to know the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth are they essentially claiming divine epistemology which they hardly seem to possess.
Public debate in open society has several problematic characteristics which effectively prevent and disrupt public debate.
1. Uncritical consensus arguments prevent essential public discussion despite the fact that the political consensus in any given open society varies very much from decade to decade.
2. The notion that prejudice is an essential trait of the other and not in oneself prevents constructive public discussion about physionomism (anti-body ideology) specifically and DOLP (discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice) generally. This is so as once someone is publicly accused of prejudice such as publicly on Facebook does that person tend to refuse to listen in rather thinking of his honor, dignity, prestige and reputation rather than about the plight of victims of structural oppression.
3. The conception that politics ought be about regurgitation of old stale debates rather than social, conceptual and technological innovation in reframing real problems so as to creatively enable their solution in an ethico-political manner certainly does very much prevent administrative, economic and social progress.
4. The masculinist notion that discussion should be about “defeating” the person whom you ought constructively dialogue with is particularly silly as if masculinist competition were more important than social innovation.
5. Stereotypical dichotomous thinking is also distinctly unhelpful and it is peculiar that the left which after all is supposed to oppose dichotomous thinking is perpetuating silly political dichotomies between left and right.
6. Propaganda has become so socially acceptable that it is typically accepted quite unthinkingly by the likeminded. What then if we were to question propaganda as disseminated by those whom we agree with?
7. Iconoclasm is an important Para-Christian social practice in open society and and liberal democracy. Yet peculiarly do iconoclasts typically produce reverse dogma where the iconoclasm itself produces a new, yet reverse taboo through the Para-Christian practice of taboo inversion. This dogmatism is typically prevalent on the active political left where many seem just as concerned with creating new forms of oppression (statist, social and economic) rather than merely endeavor to end current forms of structural oppression.
8. Public debate often has the character of public bullying against a person with whom someone disagrees. We ought seriously ask ourselves if we truly want bullies as elected representatives? Are bullies really appropriate role models? Are bullies good decision makers? We need supplant masculinist modes of debate with public dialogue where we learn to profoundly listen to and reconsider with those with whom we disagree within the pro-democratic political spectrum of expression.
9. Stale political opinions often take the form of “political identities” (“I am an x-ist and a y-ist”) where the opinionated person argues that he “believes this and that” and thus that this is “truth” as he hence essentially argues that his political identity constitutes a pseudo-religious form of “revelation”. The argument is thus that “my identity reveals truth” in actually exposing silly identity politics.
10. Cherished political axioms (principles, rights, liberties etc.) are often held dear and indeed often rightly so. However, we need always maintain a critical perspective in understanding that no axiom is better than its actual implementation, meaning that the axiom is only as good as its practical implementation. The measurable percentage of goodness in actual implementation clearly varies much between different political axioms and so we need stop thinking of political axioms as dogmas and instead become far more aware as to what contextual degree a particular political axiom is good and reversely to what degree it is not. Thus a particular contextual application of a particular political axiom may be 80% good and 20% not good and a particular political axiom may be good in 60% of actual contexts and not good in 40% of actual contexts. We need therefore reconsider as to where practically speaking a particular political axiom is ethico-politically applicable indeed.
What if we were to think in terms of reframing problems so as to enable social innovation? What if were to engage in feminist reinvention of liberal democracy and open society and question their inherent carno-phallogocentric epistemologies and masculinist assumptions of male competitive caveman aggressive behavior where you are supposed to rhetorically “defeat” your adversary rather than win him over to your side of the argument by creatively persuasive argumentation?
Democracy is traditionally a patriarchy and questioning sexism is insufficient if we don’t question inherent masculinist and carno-phallogocentric assumptions in existing institutional systems, including hierarchies that oppress individual talent rather than empowering individual talent.
We should also reconsider the respective democratic helpfulness of various formal discursive systems such as ideologies, philosophies, theologies etc. How relevant are these forms of stale systemic dogmatism really as compared to the ethico-political urgency and economic imperative of promoting conceptual, social and technological innovation? Systems are virtually never ethical and are at best ambiguously moral; systems are rather containers of socio-historically specific forms of structural oppression. Imagine if the education sector was composed of diversely operating accelerators in innovation/entrepreneurship rather than structurally oppressive and epistemologically authoritarian semiotic and institutional systems that produce weak, uncritical and unthinking persons?
What if one of the core tasks of education was to liberate persons from paradigms and other unhelpfully dogmatic systems of signification? In other words helping the individual person learn how to think out of the box almost by default. What then is the box? The box is variously described as paradigm, genre, narrative, consensus, dogma, law, faith, logic and even truth. The box is thus the systemic practice of inhibited thinking in structurally limiting thinking to stale systems of regurgitated circular and typically phallogocentric arguments.
If political movements were more concerned about ensuring effective communication vis-à-vis those whom they disagree with as opposed to creating communities of boxes of “consensus” (which in historical hindsight usually seems ridiculous!) would public discussion probably become much less reflexive. What if we were to learn to think for ourselves before mere mindlessly repeating thoughts of others? This is not to imply that there are not ideas worthy of becoming spread to many others – there certainly are – but rather that we need first learn to think for ourselves individually, in scientific chavruta pair and in group brainstorming in learning how to reframe problems so as to enable conceptual, social and technological innovation as genuine solutions to genuine problems.
To put it simply is public debate so often stereotypical, stale, ineffectual, non-listening, “leftrightist” reactionary, without neither logical nor emotional empathy and generally unhelpful in thus preventing understanding rather than enabling understanding. This needs to change if we are serious about responsibly accelerating responsible conceptual, social and technological change indeed.