The Rhetoric of Intuition

“Some virtues, when they become fashions, also become exaggerated. Just because nobody likes a judgmental attitude does not mean that there isn't a sort of spoiled, self-righteous hypocrisy when one man obsessively commands other men not to judge without knowing the circumstances without himself, too, knowing their circumstances behind their judgments.”
― Criss Jami, Killosophy

  Within the realm of online conversation and debate, you may have heard the pejorative known as “virtue signalling”.  It essentially refers to any overt display of moral superiority in an attempt to gain unearned approval or to avoid any form of nuanced discussion.  This is especially relevant to issues within the political spectrum that come down to individual choice, whether it’d be pro-life versus pro-choice, for the second amendment or for gun control, and so on.  When tackling such accusations, it’s easy to become invested in such labels and slander the opposing side using the same emotionally-charged rhetoric.  Yes, such remarks can be dismissed as nothing more than ad-hominem attacks if unjustified, but if and only if. 

What do we do in cases where our opposition may have a valid point?  What do we do when civil conversations only end up muddying the waters due to our own intolerance?

In such times of uncertainty, it may be better for us to set aside what may or may not be true, and to search instead for the psychology that lies behind each worldview.  We must take a bird’s eye view of the entire conflict and using our intuition instead.

*To reference Personality Hacker’s MBTI typology system, this would be known as either Ne or Ni, Extraverted vs. Introverted Intuition, Exploration vs. Perspectives

Take, for example, a common moral issue such as food ethics.  The stance that one would take around the diets of omnivorism, vegetarianism, veganism, or any diet in between could also indicate one’s political affiliation.  Yet, this would be a gross generalization of an individual’s character and core values.  Hypothetically speaking, an anti-abortion conservative could choose to avoid animal products based on the narrative of being pro-life.  On the flip-side, a pro-second-amendment conservative could also not care at all about the treatment of animals.  A liberal fighting for equal rights against perceived institutional injustice could also not have the same egalitarian view towards human versus animal hierarchies.

There are an endless combination of beliefs that could make up an individual or collective paradigm.  This, of course, raises serious questions regarding the validity of moral judgement as an instrument of truth, especially in times of conflict.

Ask yourself, has there ever been a time where you’ve listened to all sides of an heated debate and could never get yourself to side with one person or another?  To use a more prominent example, have you ever had trouble selecting a candidate in an election due to certain flaws in each of the candidates being presented?  This would certainly ring true for individuals that choose not to vote.  Given the partisan nature of politics, however, this could be seen as a sign of apathy or even immorality. 

It may be the case that indecisiveness is but a temporary obstacle.  It could be a catalyst for true negotiation with the consideration of each and every moral position that there is.

It would not just be a catalyst for compromise, but for an entirely new paradigm.

So how would this relate to the concept of virtue signalling?  Well, if one were to take the third-person perspective mentioned above, such a pejorative would only be used as a shortcut to deriving the truth to spare the difficulty of having to do so. This would apply not only to the side making the accusation, but also to the side on the receiving end of such language.  Knowing this, how can we harness our intuition to derive the truth and create our own set of values? 

• Using all perspectives within an ideological spectrum, we can uncover the various influences behind each and every belief.
• We can assess our reactions to different perspectives to gain a deeper understanding of our shared psychology.  We can acknowledge the existential needs and aversions that we have in common.
• We can acknowledge our inclinations towards certain ideas and use opposing perspectives as supplementary material to create a new paradigm.
• Above all, we must get in touch with the emotional energies that are created within a conflict of ideologies.  This will allow our intuition to navigate us towards perspectives that have not been integrated into the bigger picture.

This is what we call our higher self, the part of our consciousness that is free from our ego, free from a fragmented reality.  In our most private moments, even if we are uncertain as to where our intuition will lead us, we must constantly nurture and refine this part of our psyche. 

We will then foster a discussion not marred by epithets, but illuminated by epiphanies of intuition.

Intuitive Awakening - Personality Hacker
https://personalityhacker.com/develop-intuition-intuitive-awakening/