Disagreement

I told someone of a book referred by Jordan Peterson. They said they are aware of him and stopped following him. What followed was an interesting reaction.

I noticed myself immediately get my guard up against this person. It was incredible: I know that I do not know enough about Dr. Peterson’s current work to pass judgement on this person’s decision to unfollow him. They may be justified, they may not.

I also know in theory that people ought to be free to follow or unfollow others, and to speak of their preferences. My defensive reaction, which I did not express to this person, alarms me. It goes against my idea and desire to remain unattached and free from emotion.

It is no wonder people can become polarised. Can you blame them? If you do, then you blame me too. I accept responsibility for it. I accept that fact that I got defensive and judgemental without knowing the facts. This disappoints me. I wish to be fair and understanding. What is the key here?

It seems to be open communication and meditation. When faced with opposing claims, first establish goodwill. The person said

‘I am at unrest as children are getting killed and I was shocked to see his perspectives about the middle east war. I used to love his talks.’

Okay, let us work with that. First of all, understand what you do not know. You do not know of the war or his perspective. You do know, confidently, that his lectures are the only source of your opinion on him. Let us also keep aside the notion you do not wish to have opinions- this is a safe space. It is important to have opinions and work on them. Of course, when it concerns others, do not have opinions. Remain neutral. Only when faced with a decision must you enter the mode of judgement. Remember this is not your only state of being.

Why does it upset me, their statement? I believe that the pain body of the past gets triggered, it felt under attack. The order in me felt attacked by what it considered a representative of chaos. It felt the need to retaliate by cutting this person off. This is rudimentary. It is accepted. It is also accepted that the solution is not in cutting them off or blindly accepting them, but working to resolve.

Resolve what? It seems to me the greater conflict in that statement is the idea of following. What does it mean to follow? Why do they say they ‘used’ to like his lectures- are not the lectures still the same? Yes, this is my point of contention. My judgement tells me not to learn from his current views. I only look at his past lectures. Perhaps, this is my folly. I ought to look at the current views as well, to integrate both aspects of him. I realise I avoid these current views because I have heard them to be controversial. They will test my values against familiarity. Thus, I do not look at them. However, it will help to be informed if I intend to speak about him, will it?

Well, there is no need to speak about him. I do not think they are the same people- not because his views are considered controversial, but because we seldom stay static. This allows me to consider the past as a different friend. I am not attached to him, else I would have defended him no?

Incredible, how the mind works against perceived threat. One thing is certain, listening is paramount. Asking questions is too. But refrain from judging the person you are speaking to. Judge their arguments only if both of you have entered a space of debate. Enter such as space only if you know about the topic. If you do not, then ask questions. Never, ever, fool yourself into thinking you know better.

What did I truly learn? That I disagree with the idea of following. I found myself thinking the lesson is to not speak of controversial figures but this is shying away. Such upheaval gives you opportunity to meditate. You need not engage with the other person if you are uncertain. Engaging is only a tool to further understanding. But to further something, you must have that something, and that something can be obtained by writing and meditation. Sure, it will take time, but so do all good things.

By refraining to engage without a tempered mind, you are not being lazy. Look, now you have better understanding. This text did not exist, you derived it out of chaos.

Judgement upsets you, but this too is judgement. Truely, if you care to understand, identify the steps which help you understand. Look at what they are referencing to. Also, keep in mind they too may be driven by emotion. Do not hold this judgement.

Later-

I felt upset about the conversation. Many conflicts arose when you said you unfollowed him. It is interesting how easily one can feel threatened. I knew that I did not know enough about the war and his opinion, nor did I wish to judge, yet I felt threatened by it. The right response here was to ask you to elaborate, perhaps that is why in person conversations are better. I reflected on the feeling of threat. I am aware that he is controversial, but I also chose to keep out of it- my only use is for the lectures. Social media tends to distort people and the truth. Then I considered if I felt upset because the idea of unfollowing someone implies following someone. Then again, I do not know what you mean by follow. For me such a concept does not exist. In both cases, where I am far removed from the matters of social media and the idea of following, I found myself getting involved out of choice to engage in conflict. This gave me a lot to write about. It also told me to consider what these things mean to you, if you are interested in explaining. Herein is another pitfall, laziness to understand and write the conflict within myself off. I think that because of my lack of communication and approaching a conversation to understand, my relationships have deteriorated. When I look at it, you gave a very balanced outlook. It is an outlook that I share, that the lectures are amazing but the social media presence is meh. Yet, there was conflict- like a person who instigates two friends to fight. The two friends were the two parts of me, my idea of you, and- I suspect- humanity in general. I think most people share the same outlooks- for example, all religions aim at peace- yet in the goal of peace there is war. Isn't it strange?