Thoughtful people want puzzles, but not superficial ones. Riddles are fun – what is at stake now is far more serious.
So serious that to express the truth directly is to insult the thought of the reader. Of course the reader has thought like you have! How dare you assume he hasn’t considered what you’re stating outright!
The real puzzle is in musing aloud, and seeing how many different directions a thought can go, and suggesting which might be most important at the moment.
It is crucial to do this rather than state one’s politics outright, even though it seems immature at first. It seems immature because it doesn’t lend itself to immediate action, and thus treats those who are more active and more vocal as unequal. It seems to have an “I’m better than you” edge to it.
I’m actually convinced it is the only way for genuine reflection and articulate change regarding politics. A landscape entirely of the imagination is being set up, and there is hope that people join in. Issues can be defined entirely differently, and people that engage in the dialogue have a massive pull on how issues are defined.
It isn’t like that in the world of idiom, where unelected and immovable majorities have set up the idols that are the only way we can talk about issues. Either one is pro- or anti- war, pro-life or pro-choice, pro-tax or anti-tax, etc. As if values could be put on a checklist and marked held or not held, as if we were reducible to lists.
Powered by ScribeFire.