To what degree should one engage with one’s surroundings and with so called current affairs?
The extreme positions of Pro and Contra can absolutely be satisfactory in the short term. But most often these positions aren’t kept for one’s own genuine benefit but for show.
People who are very Pro or very Contra very much like for that to be known to others. It’s not enough to have the opinion in question – the world also needs to know.
Could it be that opinions – and especially strong opinions – are actually nothing more than desperate signals; signaling a need for acknowledgement? Could it be that some people want attention – negative or positive – to the degree that they adopt a point of view and an attitude that might not even be fully resonant with their genuine self?
That this is true for the Pro angle we already know: people will join an opinion in a group to be able to fit into the group, and thereby find acknowledgment and Zusammenheit (togetherness).
What about the Contra angle? I would say it’s equally true for them, because it is also possible to turn a nay attitude into a yay unity with others of like mind.
If we drift closer to the center, there are more possible facets. A centrist point of view could come from a real centrist ”persuasion,” or from being undecided or fluctuating, or from a mix of them all. The unwillingness to flaunt one’s views is not necessarily because of ”cowardice,” as is often claimed by extremists. It could equally well originate from a deep understanding of the laws of causality; of action and reaction. And an unwillingness to participate in this energy-consuming gridlock.
If one simply solves the problem in question (whether it be political or something else), there is no need for basking in its success or failure, nor for forcing one’s opinions about the problem or the solution upon others who might not have asked for it in the first place.
To be completely isolated from the news (for instance) certainly gives you peace and quiet in your own sphere. But it also decimates the tools you need to optimize your own life. On the other hand, to be fully and actively involved in the news (for instance), and never holding back your own opinions, can definitely make you lose sight of yourself. Any public arena is inherently corrupting and reactive.
The spectator who stands fast in the middle always has the best vantage point, and can act and counteract in the best possible way according to genuine convictions and views; only minimally based on narcissistic and emotionally reactive needs.
Visibility is a complicated trap, as is invisibility. If you really care about getting something done, how important is it that the world knows that you are the one responsible? At what point does narcissism inflict counter-productive damage on the process as such?
If you can be isolated or fully engaged without flaunting it, you will be more respected than if you succumb to the rules of the monocultural, narcissistic reality game. A culture that favors the opinion rather than the actual work is doomed. A culture that favors the person saying something rather than what is said, equally so.
To be fully human means realizing that existential click-baiting is not more important than living life itself. The commodified meta-market is an arena filled to the brim with Orwellian newspeak quicksand. This becomes so perfectly clear in the eye of the storm. Pro and Contra may be fair and fine – and amazingly amusing! – but you will always make the best decision for yourself by yourself.
A healthy and critical attitude should always be encouraged. There may be discrepancies, dissonance, dissent, deceit, dualism, and disagreements along the way. But it’s only when you avoid unnecessary affiliation that you can evaluate and possibly even respect your opponents.
Are they sloganeers, meme-bots or actually real human individuals? And, more importantly, are you a sloganeer, a meme-bot or actually a real human individual?
