Good point. The subjectivity of the individual is the only starting point we have. But somewhere along the line that must be challenged. We are not our narratives nor are we our coping mechanisms.

To that point I'd say that the rise of white guilt directly coincided with the emerging of Multiculturalism and the push to adopt progressive ideology. It was a construct. A method of attack and it worked.

@LeftySinister I don't disagree. It was simply a chink in the armor that they found to exploit. I doubt they care a whit about the reality of it in any larger sense. It is simply an expedient in the pursuit of an agenda and will be dropped like a rock the moment it loses its effectiveness.

I think "working on ourselves" is too subjective a term. Seems to have ruffled some feathers.

@LeftySinister That's because they need to clean their rooms, but are too busy writing world changing manifestos.

@LeftySinister Ruffle the shit out of as many feathers as possible. Lets weed out the emotional.

@The_Farseer nailed that one

Everyone has time to work on themselves, it's a matter of being aware enough to see the value in doing so. I'm not sure that awareness can ever be taught but it can be enhanced in those who show interest. I think too few are being encouraged today.

It can't be me so it must be you. This is exactly what I'm talking about. And the statement isn't false. It does encompass everyone. Even those dedicated to self work. Eventually we are all faced with a side of ourselves we can't accept or integrate. When that happens the Work stagnates and eventually ends.

@LeftySinister Our society has become polarized to the point where we are not allowed to believe or accept that we can be wrong, or that they can be right-- or that there may not be an ultimate truth.

Hey, don't call me Surely. When one knows how to do anything well, it looks easy. That the importance of awareness is not encouraged today is a sin.

@jwhitten I think we have been polarized because of the how, not the what. After all, we all want the same things.

@ScottforKing I don't know if I agree about "we all want the same things" part. I think that might be the actual cause of a lot of the friction we're having in the world. Add to that the near instant ability to communicate and compare notes and you can have some near-incendiary reactions pretty quick.

This is very true. We've lost common ground.

Time to bring back the Hellenistic traditions of old!

@The_Farseer What are you proposing, a quest?

@jwhitten In mythological terms yes. In reality the goal is constructive cooperation through the recognition that 50% of the people cannot achieve anything if the other 50% will undo it first chance they get. The U.S debate about abortion is an example, one half of the people want it to be a criminal offence punishable by the weight of the law and enact legislation to make that a reality. The other half of the population want it to be on demand and when they are in authority they remove and change every law.

It seems clear that this to and fro will continue indefinitely. Even if it takes decades each 50% is determined to prevail. This happens over many issues in many democracies costing billions of dollars. It would seem far more reasonable to accept this as a reality and instead move toward an agreed compromise position.

I understand this will never appeal to everyone on either side, however even if only 60% of both sides can agree then we woill achieve stability. This was at one time the way democracy worked.

It seems now each side takes the view it is our way or no way. We get into power then we undo everything the previous group did and then repeat.

If I may suggest, a different goal, assuming the direction we in the West are going even has a goal.

@waynus I was suddenly struck with the question of how this has been resolved in the past-- not your specific point about abortion, but the 50/50 issue-- is it perhaps that every so often in the past people have had a war to fight in which large numbers of young men are clubbed out of existence and thus the tie is broken? What issues / paths do you think society has taken in the past which might have been different if those men had lived? Do you think we would have had the 50/50 problem sooner? Do you think the morals of that bygone age would have provided proxy-guidance toward a solution? Lots to think about on that thought..

I didn't really mean to not answer your larger comment, you just made me think about that as I was reading it.

@jwhitten A fair question, though I am thinking not so simple to address.

In the past:
a) Large numbers were simply denied a voice. For gender, race, finance etc
b) There has been a tide of change that a majority have over time agreed with and not sought to overturn

I think the present time is rare in that never before have we had a large group of people wanting to go backwards in time

@waynus 'Backwards in time'? I understand that's a euphemism and you're actually referring to culture-- but what do you mean? What values / culture do you believe they are longing to adopt? (Sincere question, no gotchas-- I suspect I know, I just want to hear what you have to say)

@jwhitten Simply wanting to restore what are called "traditional" values; but by force of law. They long for a world (these are only examples) where no one challenged the moral authority of the church, the sanctity of the family and the nature of gender and sexuality.

The problem is not the values but the compulsion that would be needed to force people to comply. I think there is a vast difference between people voluntarily accepting certain patterns of behaviour and being compelled to do so.

The world that this compulsion would produce would be an unpleasant one.

@waynus Yes, that's what I figured you meant. The compulsion angle though is interesting, the idea of a legislated morality. And yet I think you could argue that we have that already to a large degree, it's just not as tilted toward conservative family values as it once was-- but rather to more hedonistic principles, IMO. Libertarian "values" would be okay with me, because then people could more or less pick the lifestyle they wanted, but in the end it probably still wouldn't work for large concentrated populations because of the magnified "me me me" factor. Which I would argue is part of what got us to where we are today around the world. The incessant chipping away, brick by brick, of the conservative foundation-- at least in the United States-- which was laid down by the framers of our country. We've gone from "citizens and service" to wild all night parties where everything goes and nobody need care in the morning-- excepting of course, the clean-up crew. And men. Everything is built on the backs of men who have to do all the dirty work in society.