The current historical period is probably the most uncertain we, that is human beings as a collective group, have gone through at least in the last 75 years.
We are facing a deep, radical existential crisis which is undoubtedly unprecedented.
There are many different ways this crisis actually manifests; and it probably would not make any sense I mention even a couple of relevant examples.
See, I would like to avoid creating the impression that I view issues A or B, which I would name, as more significant than issues X or Y, which I would not.
And since these are also the times when it seems that nearly anything can be misunderstood, I think it is wiser I refrain from being more explicit in this regard.
Besides, chances are that whichever example comes to your mind when reading the above lines would constitute a valid form of expression of this crisis.
There are three striking and overarching characteristics of said crisis, applicable in each of its constituent case studies, without a single exception:
First, whatever becomes an object of public discourse provokes an instantaneous – often literally so, given the enormous capabilities of contemporary technology – polarisation and a subsequent extremely polemic exchange among the fervent supporters of the various views associated with said object.
Second, one’s sheer participation in any such discourse immediately labels them as proponents of one or the other view in the eyes of the people who are active in it; interestingly, this also applies to anyone who present themselves as agents of some sort of «neutrality» or «mediation»: the latter tend to be simultaneously assigned with different labels, depending on whom you ask (that is, if there exist two opposing views on a matter, say 1 and 2, the self-proclaimed representatives of neutrality/mediation will be labelled as «undercover agents» of view 2 by the supporters of view 1, and, respectively, as «undercover agents» of view 1 by the supporters of view 2).
Third, the underlying or sometimes open assumption, and expectation, of everyone involved is that the only way to resolve said debate is the annihilation (symbolic, metaphorical or, worse, literal) of the proponents of all views other than of the eventually prevailing one.
This deeply problematic, contrarian and partisan approach to virtually everything that emerges as a, even marginally, debatable issue in the public sphere accentuates the degree of difficulty associated with all topics of collective human significance nowadays; a degree that, in most cases, was already high to begin with.
Is there a way out of this colossal conundrum, before it is too late for humanity?
If yes (and we have to assume the answer to this question is yes, otherwise what’s the point in anything any longer?), which precisely is this way?
To answer this question, one must begin by looking inside oneself.
One must first understand who one truly is before one can proceed with providing their authentic, unique and always perfectly right answer.
And, yes, there is obviously more than one correct answer to this question on the individual level.
As there is only one correct reply on the collective level: this is the combined result of each and every individually correct reply.
The latter statement may be misleading, in the sense that it can be perceived as assuming that the collective level is nothing more than the sum of its parts, therefore theoretical, therefore irrelevant.
But this is not at all what I claim.
What I claim is that the collective level is meaningless without taking into consideration the individual level, exactly as the individual level is also meaningless when not taking into account the collective level.
It’s like the two sides of the same coin.
However, the starting point is always, by default, by definition and by construction, the individual level.
[To be continued…]
