Steering out of dangerous paths.


While avid supporters of the extreme right politics (Bush Administration, Sharon Administration, Sharia supporters, etc) will see this section of this web site as a biased set of mere opinions,  I suggest  that it is much more.  The "bias" is in the direction of overcoming oversimplifications—with limited hyperbole used for effect.  Certain abstract concepts are seen more clearly by the opponents of the far right than by its supporters.  "Civil liberties" is the most abstract here—it's one that very many, especially on the right, simply do not conceptualize.  Simplicity is not a virtue when responding to intricate complexity.

When controversy splits people into opposing sides with a disproportionate number of professionals in professions that require abstract thinking on one side of the controversy than on the other, we are almost assured that the controversy is over abstractions seen by one side and not by the other.  And we can expect that majority rule will rule on the side of error.  (America's founding fathers were thinkers who were well aware of this problem, and they made mighty efforts to avoid it.)

For example. the Bush Administration's well-deserved reputation for seeking and seeing simplicity is more appropriately described as making gross oversimplifications—perpetually, pervasively, too often perniciously, and very often preposterously.  They seem blind to their oversimplifications and insult the American public by assuming similar blindness in everyone.  They make consumate use of the techniques of advertisers (PAP) and of skilled propagandists,  both of which operate by opinion shaping through skillfully directed oversimplificaiton.  Hyperbole is just the starting point for these techniques. 

Broader vision is the primary source of the intense world-wide opposition to the Bush Administration.

Correcting oversimplifications is never wrong.  It may be insufficient to solve the problems, but it is always necessary.  And here we hit upon one of the many sources of our deep troubles: the distinction between necessity and sufficiency is at the edges of human comprehension, very often a blurred distinction and perhaps even unseen.  That makes correcting oversimplifications carry far more logical weight than is revealed by simpleminded thinking.  To vision that is blind to the richer  viewpoints—blind to the more abstract and more complete reality—the disagreement seems to be no more than "merely personal opinion."

Dumbing down is dangerous.


click on this strange sight to see more