Getting to the point—finally

It is one week later—in a process that has gone on for several years—and I am, not surprisingly, no closer to a solution to the problem I began to describe last week.

I will approach this from the ground up.

Over the last several months I have put forth my arguments and position that behavior is emotion-caused and that emotions are the result of biological processes generally beyond immediate conscious influence. Moreover, I have maintained that emotions trump logic in any significant behavioral choice, even that of supposedly going against one’s feelings.

Let me reiterate, for the record, that this does not mean that I believe individuals are not responsible for their own behavior, only that our confusion over this matter leads everyone to make some very ineffective decisions both in action and in reaction.

To return to my premise: last week I began a discussion of two virtually universal emotional states popularly referred to as liberal and conservative. I suggested that these temperaments probably occurred throughout the population in a continuum of intensity that saw most people clustered toward the center and very few people occupying the extreme manifestations of these outlooks. I explained that distribution of intensity in the population as approximating the classic bell-shaped curve of common statistical analysis and I explained what that meant. I offered no evidence to support my claim but I argue that, given the size of the population being considered, which is everybody, that bell curve of distribution is pretty much guaranteed.

So far, so good.

Now I will appear to digress; don’t be fooled.

Many years ago I had a wise man tell me, “The more insecurity someone can live with, the happier he will be.” He had noted that life was fraught with uncertainty and that this could cast a pall of threat over one’s existence. His suggestion was that, if this uncertainty—which, in any case, could not be avoided—could be accepted and embraced, then one could attend better to the joys that are also presented in life and live more effectively at the same time.

Here, then, is what I consider the crux of this matter and one which I have long hoped to couch in purely neutral terms. But that is what I have been unable to do. So I’ll just go with what I have.

It is my belief that so-called liberals and conservatives find themselves on opposite sides of this acceptance divide. Liberals, generally, are able to accept more uncertainty, while conservatives, comparatively speaking, are more attuned to threat.

. . . ?!

Hmmm-mm. Actually, that came out a lot more neutral-sounding than I expected. I’m a bit flummoxed. I was prepared to provide lengthy qualifying explanations, but maybe not.

More on the ramifications of this at a later date. For right now, I’m going to quit while I think I’m ahead.

!