Wonderism and politics

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Wonderist on November 28, 2009 at 9:34am

"I would prefer if wonderism could find ways that made all these as reluctant as possible to hijack wonderism as a tool for them to fish for members to their extreme views."

Well, in terms of violence, there are two ways I can answer that. First, the minimalist philosophy of foundationism, which I use as a base for wonderism, is about non-violent resolution of conflict, so my version of wonderism will never endorse violence like the groups you mention. Second, I see violence as inherently about terror. Sometimes violence is necessary in self-defense, but when it is used as a tool to influence others, that's basically terrorism. I mean, I don't see how you can get around that. Wonderism is intended to be anti-terrorism. Not just the obvious kind of terror, either, but the more insidious kind, like oppression, authoritarianism, theocracy, etc.

I agree with you, we should try to ensure wonderism can withstand such hijacking. In fact, I'd say this is one of the most important things the philosophy should do.

"My gut feeling is that some Pro Life supporters could say that they wonder about the unborn child rights and so on."

People wonder about all sorts of stuff. Wonderism, though, is taking that wonder and applying it over and over again, fearlessly. We should not stop at 'wondering' about our pet political agendas. We should wonder if we might be wrong about our political biases. We should wonder if the science says that aborting fetuses below a certain age could not inflict suffering because of a lack of a brain. We should wonder if the evidence shows there's no such thing as a soul. Etc.

Perhaps you're saying that we should develop more formal structures for wonderism, like an 'immune system' against ideological take-over? I would agree. I'm not sure where the cut-off point should be. Is the 'choosing wonder over terror' test enough? Maybe not. Maybe that's only a starting point, and to get to foundational wonderism you need a few more basic ideas/principles.

I'm open to suggestions. I think this is a very important aspect which needs to be worked out. I want wonderism to be anti-dogma without becoming a dogma itself, and as safe from hijacking as we can make it. If we are looking for inspiration for ways of doing this, two things come to mind: Science, and open-source.

"Humans have a tendency to defend what they see as identity."

Yes, I agree. I call this ego, and it, too, is usually based on fear of the unknown, i.e. terror. I hope wonderism can help break down these ego barriers. One example of how this can work is the example of science vs. racism: The science shows there's no such thing as distinct human races. When you really take this idea to heart and appreciate it, it can change your perspective on your personal 'identity' and the 'identity' of people you previously referred to by racial labels. I used to think I was a 'non-racist white guy'. But after taking the science to heart, I realized that even that notion was based on racism. There are no races, so how can I think of myself as a 'white guy'? Now I reject racial labels. I'm a human who happens to have pale skin with low pigmentation. As a short-hand, we can say my skin is 'white', even though it's not really. It's like calling hair 'blond', no big deal. But my identity has shifted from 'white guy' to 'human', and now I share that identity with all humans, instead of an artificial ego about 'race'.

Similar shifts in personal identity can come from realizing that all humans are apes, that all humans are animals, that all humans share a single planet, that the entire planet including humans came from material out of a star/supernova, etc.

I hope wonderism helps break down ego identity barriers rather than create new ones. Of course, the label alone is used in many ways as an identifier. I am a wonderist. But, as I've said elsewhere, I consider people and their beliefs to be distinct. I am not my wonderism, and my wonderism is not me. Being a wonderist does not become my personal identity, it more describes something that is true of me, like the fact that I have white skin, or brown hair, or don't believe in any gods. These are not who I am, but what I am. Not my identity, but just accurate descriptions of me. Maybe we should discuss ego more, and how to keep it from becoming a fear-based controller of one's actions.

"So we need a kind of agreed upon minimal basic or default interpretation along the way you already suggested."

Yes, this is something that needs to be fleshed out more. I agree.