More Inability To Comm: The Iago Syndrome

It is everywhere.
I seem to remember that the pod-people of The Invasion Of The Body Snatchers were pretty much tight lipped and did not indulge in a lot of talk, idle or otherwise.

More on Iago Syndrome (for, from that point on, he would not speak word!):

In First Things:
Why We Cannot Reach Compromise
by Wesley J. Smith
12 . 11 . 15
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/12/why-we-cannot-reach-compromise

... A debate, it seems to me, requires a baseline commonality of fundamental values and desired goals. Sharing a common ethical understanding and seeking mutually compatible ends, debaters contest the best means to attain the mutually desired goal. For example, in my youth, there were many debates—some of them quite bitter—between liberals and conservatives, “doves” and “hawks,” over how to win the Cold War. But there was no fundamental disagreement about the imperative of our prevailing over the Soviet Union.

Contrast those Cold War debates with the current discord over euthanasia. Where is there room for debate or compromise between two incompatible worldviews? Those arguing about euthanasia are speaking two different moral languages.

Let me give an illustration of what I mean. Several years ago, I was invited to an international bioethics conference as a panelist on euthanasia. My co-panelist was a Dutch ethicist who supported his country’s liberal legalization regimen. We sparred courteously for an hour, and although the discussion remained cordial, we found no points of agreement, either on means or ends.

At the end of the convention, one participant—a UN bureaucrat—told me angrily that many people were upset because I was not willing to engage in “conversation.” I was surprised. “I flew 6,000 miles to engage in conversation,” I replied. “I have respectfully listened to opposing views and been civil in presenting my own opinions.”

“But you refuse consensus,” he complained. That’s when I realized that I hadn’t been invited to discuss and defend my viewpoint. Instead, I was brought there to reach an agreement, to find a compromise, by accepting “a little euthanasia” as the middle ground. But that was a fool’s errand—for me, a little euthanasia is still euthanasia.

Give-and-take is possible when the subject is something technocratic, like tax rates or the proper speed limit, or when the debaters agree on ends. But for matters involving bitter differences over fundamental values, or, to borrow a term, issues that derive from or impact “first things”—abortion, religious liberty, sexual and gender controversies, the death penalty, terrorism and war—“compromise” is unachievable, because accord would require one side to surrender its moral views to the other.

That leaves us tolerating different opinions—increasingly our default setting—rather than engaging in fruitful debate as a true community. But we aren’t that community anymore. This does not mean that our estrangement will last indefinitely, but it does mean that society will have to choose between contesting and incompatible worldviews. As Lincoln put it so well about the slavery crisis that roiled his time: “I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” ...

And now we are no longer even tolerating the different opinions.

Some of us shut them out, but some of us are very creative and are buying guns.

--

The Inability To Comm

I recently wrote a post on intolerance of opposing viewpoints on college campuses in the USA. Interestingly enough, and one should add - obviously enough, the problem extends deeper into all parts of society.
And that makes sense. To assume that intolerance rears it head only in one segment of a society is a simpleton's belief.

Good article in Tablet:
The Closing of the American Jewish Mind

A shul reconsiders an invitation to give a talk on politics, based on a perception of the speaker’s political affiliations—and healthy dialogue takes yet another blow

By Julian E. Zelizer
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/195443/closing-american-jewish-mind

... The vitriol makes it less likely that Israel will be a topic of discussion among American Jews in our communal institutions. Not only does this politicization undermine our ability to interact as a true community, rather than as an institution of factions, but it actually stifles the possibility for congregations to talk about and think about and to enjoy the central role of Israel in our collective experience. The executive vice president of the Academy for Jewish Religion told the Times of Israel that many rabbis were reporting being “unable or not comfortable talking about Israel in their synagogues. It didn’t come from a lack of love. They’re deeply invested in Israel, and yet they felt they could not get into a conversation without deeply offending other parts of their community.” ...

We have lived too long on the stories we tell ourselves.

We do not wish to communicate ("comm"); we wish to reside in the Story we have received, embellished, and lived in for so many years, even more so now that we feel the winds of reality blowing against that Story's facade.
--

(a note on this;
I have been asked why focus on a Story - which is a form of communication - destroy communication?
The answer is that Story - particularly a very strong and emotional story which enchants us and keeps our attention - does not require any other form of communication while it is going on. For example, a wonderful movie which totally enthralls us. When the movie ends and the lights go up, we are startled and a bit sad to be set free from the enchantment.
But while the movie was on, nothing but nothing made us turn our gaze away from the screen, and the emotional link was unsevered.

To truly comm with another of a different view, one must allow one's attention to turn away from one's guiding Story and make oneself able to sympathetically view someone else's story.)