We do care about similar things if you frame it that way. I would never, ever, ever describe any of our conversations as "what would best make a democratic society" because what you talk about sounds much more overarching than that. When I think of what would best make a democratic society I don't think of what you think of. I think of pluralism and freedom of press and fair elections and civil society and rule of law. And I know, believe me, that a lot more ties in - but if I try to think about what you think about, it would break my head, because I already think in too much detail about things like civil society and because my brain is always half-taken up by stories I'm trying to write and characters in my head.
I think that I tend to think horizontally instead of vertically. So say I'm talking about, I don't know, masculinity in the military. What I like to do is make that discussion richer rather than immediately jumping up a level to the frames our society uses and ceasing to talk about concrete things. And I think that is because I write, so I think in terms of details and images and emotion and texture - instead of, say, truth, or philosophy, which I would call more vertical.
And when I'm forced to think vertically I can't even form a cogent argument, because it's too vague for me. That's why it becomes bullshit. But this ties back into the pursuit of truth and relativism. And then I start feeling like my own interests are getting pushed aside. A better way of putting it is that the argument is never defined the way I would define it. It's always on a different, bigger scale, where I can't make sense of things, because it seems like the factors are mind-bogglingly infinite. And that's fine if you think that way. But you can't expect me to. We're not the same person.
I mean, all I wanted to say in this post is that I find the quirks of politicians interesting, and I find their neurosis interesting. I've always liked the idea of a link between insanity and politics. I have nothing really to back me up on that but I like thinking about it. And I don't want to just immediately step into frames and society and how it's all part of a big system. And I'm a constructivist, you know, I like systems, but part of the reason I'm a constructivist is actually because it's the only perspective that allows for things like irrationality. And I wanted to dwell on that level. I'm sure that if I wrote about insanity and politics you would be able to dismiss it as something very insignificant in the large scheme of things (or that it has nothing to do with insanity because it's all been carefully sculpted by the system, or something else that completely dismisses it as unimportant to talk about) and maybe it is insignificant in the history of humankind. But see, in my lifetime, in my career, I'm likely to encounter insane people in politics. And it doesn't matter a whole lot to future-me how society in the long-run shaped them to be that way, and why no one likes to be objectified, and how we're all part of a group that's been stereotyped - I just need to be able to deal with them in the immediate timeframe, and quite frankly, to be amused about it. And I'm sure that sounds like a very small life to you but I'm okay with it. Honest.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-26 05:02 pm (UTC)I think that I tend to think horizontally instead of vertically. So say I'm talking about, I don't know, masculinity in the military. What I like to do is make that discussion richer rather than immediately jumping up a level to the frames our society uses and ceasing to talk about concrete things. And I think that is because I write, so I think in terms of details and images and emotion and texture - instead of, say, truth, or philosophy, which I would call more vertical.
And when I'm forced to think vertically I can't even form a cogent argument, because it's too vague for me. That's why it becomes bullshit. But this ties back into the pursuit of truth and relativism. And then I start feeling like my own interests are getting pushed aside. A better way of putting it is that the argument is never defined the way I would define it. It's always on a different, bigger scale, where I can't make sense of things, because it seems like the factors are mind-bogglingly infinite. And that's fine if you think that way. But you can't expect me to. We're not the same person.
I mean, all I wanted to say in this post is that I find the quirks of politicians interesting, and I find their neurosis interesting. I've always liked the idea of a link between insanity and politics. I have nothing really to back me up on that but I like thinking about it. And I don't want to just immediately step into frames and society and how it's all part of a big system. And I'm a constructivist, you know, I like systems, but part of the reason I'm a constructivist is actually because it's the only perspective that allows for things like irrationality. And I wanted to dwell on that level. I'm sure that if I wrote about insanity and politics you would be able to dismiss it as something very insignificant in the large scheme of things (or that it has nothing to do with insanity because it's all been carefully sculpted by the system, or something else that completely dismisses it as unimportant to talk about) and maybe it is insignificant in the history of humankind. But see, in my lifetime, in my career, I'm likely to encounter insane people in politics. And it doesn't matter a whole lot to future-me how society in the long-run shaped them to be that way, and why no one likes to be objectified, and how we're all part of a group that's been stereotyped - I just need to be able to deal with them in the immediate timeframe, and quite frankly, to be amused about it. And I'm sure that sounds like a very small life to you but I'm okay with it. Honest.