Guillem GallifaThere are the rightists, and there are the leftists. There is capitalism on the one hand, and the less successful but still valid communism on the other. There is machismo, which is at a low ebb, and on the other side feminism, with a growing media power. Some favour a united Europe, others argue that a fragmented one would be preferable. Politics, society, sexuality, ecology? It seems that absolutely nothing concerning human life escapes the unique pendulum swing of opposing ideologies.
But have we ever stopped to think, not about the ideology of one or the other, but about the very nature of ideologies? Why do we fervently follow one system of ideas while discarding or rejecting others? Science and modern psychology show us, repeatedly, that reality always encompasses infinitely more than what we can box into a carefully selected set of ideas to reinforce our views.
An anecdote attributed to Plato tells us that he was strolling along the beach one day when he saw the philosopher Diogenes the Cynic, who was repeatedly filling a glass with seawater and depositing its contents on the sand. When he saw him, aware of his reputation as a strange and heterogeneous character, Plato turned to Diogenes and asked him what was the purpose of such a singular task.
Diogenes replied that he intended to empty the sea of water. Naturally, Plato’s suspicions were confirmed: it was just another blessing from the misnamed philosopher. And he condescendingly replied to him about the impossible magnitude of his presumption. “But if you try to encapsulate reality in a few ideas and theories? What must you say to me?” the cynic is said to have replied.
And in a similar vein, Anthony de Mello tells us, in one of his ineffable and extraordinary collections of stories, the following story: The Master was certainly not oblivious to all that was going on in the world. When he was asked to recount one of his favourite aphorisms, “There is nothing good or bad; it is the thought that determines it”, he said: “Haven’t you noticed that what people say ‘congestion’ on a train becomes ‘atmosphere’ in a discotheque?”.
And to illustrate the same aphorism he explained one day how little he had heard his father, a famous politician, severely criticise a member of his party who had gone over to the opposite party.
– But, father, if the other day you were doing nothing but praising a man who had left the opposing party to switch to your party…
– You see, son, you must learn this significant truth as soon as possible: those who switch to the other party are traitors; those who switch to ours are converts. How is it possible that Laia has the same number and solidity of arguments as Martí, if they think in truly opposite ways? How is it possible that each is so convinced that his data are reliable, and that those of his interlocutor are nothing more than a bag of fallacies, low-profile demagogy and distortions of the truth?
The Kena Upanishad , an ancient Indian text, says that wisdom begins when one stops looking at what the mind thinks, and starts looking at what makes the mind think. Let’s think about it, please, let’s think about it. , balance, and middle ground need to be considered calmly and patiently, before we give ourselves unthinkingly and enervating to the first ideology that pleases our tendencies and our senses.
📎 Gallifa, G. [Guillem]. (2024, 30 October). Defending an idea. PsicoPop. https://www.psicopop.top/en/defending-an-idea/
📖 References:
