A Tale of Brothers

I.
Lately I've been hearing some sad stories about the loss of friends and family members due to differing opinions on what is happening in the world and what to do about it. One particularly poignant story was about two brothers who recently became engaged in a discussion about the Covid vaccine roll out. One had decided not to receive them, the other had already scheduled his shot. During their conversation, insults were exchanged and their discussion devolved and ended with high emotions and the fracturing, at least for a time, of their relationship.

Both were sure they were in the right. Both had created an emotional position which had no room for the other to have theirs and so the destruction of many years of love, cooperation, sharing, and good will.

Conversely, just the other day, I heard a very positive story about two very different brothers. I'll get to this at the end of the post ... or just scroll down and read that bit because it really is the main point I hope to convey. What follows here Is part of my process as I consider all this...

People have always had disagreements. It seems to me they are largely based on our different cultural and experiential backgrounds as well as on where we obtain the information we use to make our decisions in life and the reliability of the information. There is an extraordinary amount of variance in these areas and it should be no big surprise that people see the world through different lenses.

The other problem in obtaining agreement is the corruption of the information field itself. While I would argue that Trump added to the problem, he was not wrong to point out the issue of "fake news", nor was he the first by any means. I was first introduced to this topic through the work of Noam Chomsky. His book, Manufacturing Consent is still quite relevant today. I'm reminded of one particular quote: "The standard view of how the system works is at serious odds with reality."

All of this has led me to the question of trust and faith and the role these have come to play in current events, particularly how they function to divide people and how this may be resolved.

Allowing for different interpretations of these words, I basically land with trust being more an intellectual process and faith being more emotional, even hopeful. This is not to discount either and I believe that both can be well grounded, even faith, but that is another story. The problem is that with difficult, complex topics, both can be hard to obtain with clarity.

Trust (or the lack of trust) can often be arrived at quickly especially if one is listening to sources previously trusted and in the absence of dissenting views. This may lead us to having an opinion and we often then infuse opinion with emotion. I've certainly done that and I recognize that emotion then creates a hurdle if I encounter evidence to the contrary somewhere down the line, even If it comes from an otherwise trusted source or from a brother as in the example above.

It's one thing to have an opinion, even a stand, but when that opinion collapses a lifetime of love between brothers it has become an emotional "position" to be defended, and even new facts may not alter the conflict. Or so it seems to me.

In current events, I find this understandable to a point as the issues are very complex and people are suffering for many reasons. What concerns me is that the more entrenched positions become, the more we are seeing those who hold different views being met with hostility (ether side). And escalation is not outside the realm of possibility. Nonetheless, I'm wondering what may change this dynamic in relationships.

II.
Regarding government and trust, it is my current view that, at least here in the US, many if not most institutions (regulatory bodies) and political personalities are heavily swayed if not owned by corporate influence. Science too, is often bent to appease big money as evidenced by the well understood importance of independent research compared to industry funded research. So I start my wondering about political issues with that in mind, regardless of the party in power.

To use an example which is not as volatile as others I can think of, consider the issue of radiation toxicity (I’ll try to keep this brief). I encountered this topic in depth about two years ago and have found it to be fascinating, illuminating, and also frustrating at the level of federal and local politics.

From the perspective of conventional science, there is no question that what is called "ionizing radiation" is directly harmful to living organisms. Nobody really disagrees on this point. Where it gets sticky is with "non-ionizing radiation", including artificial EMF used in telecommunications and more. Here, as with other topics, we find scientists on both sides of the aisle. Conventional scientists (who are also industry funded) insist that the only risk is from heating due to over exposure. Meanwhile, there are thousands of scientific studies, many peer reviewed, many from military projects, and some going back as far as the 1950's showing clear evidence of serious, non-heat related injury from this kind of radiation.

So there is a schism. We are told by officials, particularly in the current 4G/5G roll out, that there is nothing to see here and the enormous amount of new radiation exposure is of no concern. Yet, published studies suggest this is clearly untrue and much more debate and discussion should be occurring. But there are insane amounts of money and a future trajectory at stake. This influence has overtaken government in many ways including the FCC which is now considered by Harvard University to be a "captured agency".

So the average citizen who simply trusts the FCC and Big Telecom probably does so without all the facts. If presented with new information, there may be an emotional response, as we all may have when seeing something undesirable. At that point a choice becomes necessary - does one learn more or does one rest on a kind of unwarranted trust that the agencies involved are acting on behalf of the public's best interests.

Personally, and here we enter in to more volatile territory, I see the covid vaccination program in a similar light, only it is a harder topic because of the high levels of emotion involved and the greater media involvement I respect people's right to make their own choice here, absolutely, and always wish the best for people regardless of their choice.

For myself, I've delved into this topic at great length and continue to do so and can't help but conclude that what we are seeing is not in the best interest of the public. I'll present my thoughts and references on why I see it this way in a different post, but for now, my larger point is that with any topic of importance, multiple perspectives and dissent are needed. Civil debate and dialogue are essential. And yes, the freedom to make choices in our lives and respect those of others is fundamental. Where we draw the line on the territory of choice is a matter of debate, but the power to have meaningful choice must not be lost.

This leads me back to the story of the other two brothers: Here we have two grown men with a long history of good will between them. They shared many adventures, had each others back on numerous occasions. They were tight. They were friends. Over time, their political views shifted and changed as often happens in life, but it was never an issue... until this presidency. (Cue ominous music)

This year, one of the brothers landed in support of Trump and the other most surely did not. The difference percolated a bit under the surface until one day they were talking and it began to get heated. The more passionate of the two brothers started to become agitated leading to the same in the other. This grew until one of them, I don't recall which one, became self-aware. At that point, he drifted back from the conversation a bit, took some deep breaths, and started feeling like himself again. He then remembered his love for his brother. His shift enabled the other to calm as well and they were able to make their way through the conversation without enmity. After, they were still brothers, their relationship was in tact. And though they did not agree on everything, they would not let that come between their larger valuing of their friendship. Somehow a bridge had been crossed.

I found this inspiring. May we all find insight and good will as we make our way through these unusual times.

With love and respect to my friends.

A.

p.s. The writer is neither of the brothers in these stories, nor does this post indicate support for any political party or personality… just sayin’.