How synthesis can be weaponized
Like anything, synthesis can be weaponized.
If I want to convince you of something that's Center-Left, I can make Center the thesis, Left the anti-thesis, and presto!
But some perspectives are inherently un-integrate-able. ‘Abortion never’ and ‘abortion always’ don't play well with other perspectives.
Other perspectives are morally unwelcome. A meaningful synthesis on race isn't between anti-racism and racism, but between the anti-racism proposed by Ibram X. Kendi and the color-blindness proposed by Coleman Hughes.
We must be discerning about which perspectives we’re integrating, and how we frame the sides of the debate.
So, how do we make sure we're not weaponizing synthesis to convince ourselves of something we want to believe? Have epistemic humility. Keep reminding ourselves that the map, no matter how detailed, is not the territory. And maintain a contemplative practice — like meditation or prayer — that keep us tethered to the wholeness of reality.
The American right has been doing this for decades. Some on the think-tank folks have called it “using Hegelian dialectics,” for obvious reasons, though I doubt Hegel/Marx ever intended or imagined the process itself could or should be weaponized. It seems they more or less saw themselves as describing a natural phenomenon, rather than prescribing a method to influence social development—though I could be failing to give them enough credit. I’m not 💯 sure if they ever realized this possibility.
Regardless this is a great insight.
I often think about how this system we’re in responds to predictions about itself. Joseph Schumpeter is the economist who developed the idea of “creative destruction,” and critiqued Marx extensively—but he did agree (to his own disdain) that socialism would eventually prevail. He proposed that, instead of exogenously, through violent proletarian revolution, it would be replaced endogenously, by the growing literate and educated class becoming more aware of the dark side of capitalism, and acting/voting to replace it with something more morally palatable—socialist public welfare policies.
Shortly thereafter, the full on defunding and dismantling of public education, and attack on intellectualism commenced.
This is a “tier 2 chaotic system.” Tier 1 includes things like weather systems that are just so incredibly complex that they’re difficult to predict. But one day with the right tools and technology, we might be able to do so, at least much better than we can now. Social development, on the other hand, is like the stock market—even more so, as it includes the stock market—it will change outcome when a prediction about its outcome, or observation about its major trends is made, in direct response to those predictions and observations.
This “weaponization” of developmentalism is another an example of that.
But taking all this into consideration, what’s the next prediction or observation we could make? And how can we “weaponize” or practically apply, or redirect the implications of the information in a way that in conducive to the kind of outcomes we see as ideal? Rather than having them co-opted or hijacked by contra-integral/developmentalist agendas?