Various topics

First: the dynamic of polar ideologies coexisting in a society that shares the same mutual interest.

Basically that is made possible by the division of society into two dimensions: public life and private life.

While the person is the same in both public and private life, the variables of their identity are applied differently to situations in either public or private life. While this is applicable to all people, even children in grade school making their first friends on their own without their parents supervising, I will use an example of a social elite for convenience— a senator. More specifically, a senator in ancient Rome. This is important because there are also timeless qualities of civilization that link us to the people of the past and future, and this one of them.

So, consider the Roman Senate under the auspice of the Augustus Caesar. For liability purposes, I wish to disclose that I am not an expert on Ancient Roman history, so there may be discrepancies in my example that don’t match historical fact, but for the purposes of the example that won’t matter. That is very different from how I discuss Christianity, which I do claim expertise on the subject and if I am wrong about something I want that to be pointed out to me so I can be corrected.

All scholars, professionals, and mature adults should be like that in their respective areas of authority. You may find it upsetting to your ego to be told you are wrong about something, but as a mature adult you should be able to override the indignant animal nature to secure the dignity of your human nature and be humble for the sake of wisdom, not arrogant for the sake of vanity. A good rule of thumb is to always consider yourself inferior to an imaginary other person who is superior in all the ways you want to be— not fundamentally superior as a natural being, but as a professional, a scholar, an expert, an athlete, an artist, etc.

Alright so imagine a Roman Senate of the ancient days. They probably are a lot like the Senate in the USA except with less technology, less advanced language, less resources for administation, but essentially doing the same thing. They are presented a topic that conerns the public, and then talk, argue, and decide what to do about it as a Senate according to their varied interests, and they certainly had a lot of different groups to identify their opinions with. In this example though, we will consider the polar opposites of Gentile and Jew. I don’t know a Jew was ever a Roman Senator back then, not likely, but for the example imagine it as a possibility since they could be Roman citizens like any other.

The Gentile in this case and Jew both have radically different opinions about how society should be goverened— centralized authority under one ruler (monotheism), or diverse forms of authority spread throughout different domains of society (polytheism). The topic for the discussion in the Senate is something they couldn’t be more passionately opposed about, and when they argue on the Senate floor, that passion shows. That is their public life. They are not only servants of the public by being senators, but they are openly presenting themselves for all to see and judge and know in public.

No matter how much they may disagree, at the end of the day they hang up the laurels of being a senator and go to their private life at home with their family and they are not troubled by the way matters are done on the Senate floor. The are more concerned about keeping the wife happy, providing for the kids, and making sure the home is being properly maintained. They couldn’t care less about what everyone else thinks, because in private life one is concerned about their own private situation as it does not apply to other people. Both the Gentile and the Jew are the same in this regard, even if their home life is different. In fact, they may even meet for drinks after work in the identity of their private life and not worry about those big, public identities, because deep down on the private level, people are just people trying to make the most of life while surviving.

That’s how it should be. A difference between private and public life, and why public officials like the president, senators, representatives, and all other offices of the government administration need to be accountable to the public and not secretive as though their job was entitled to private privilege, because those jobs are not. They are most certainly publicly accountable and should have no problems revealing anything about their life to the public, especially not something as trivial as tax records. Why Trump would be difficult about that is incriminating to him because either he is hiding something or he is showing that he does not trust the public and thus cannot be trusted by the public. Tax records are not private matters, and I don’t know why they even asked for them… that is all government information that concerns the public and should not be private at all.

So… that’s the point of how radically different ideologies can coexist: maintaining a healthy and secure boundary between public and private life, meaning prohibiting the invasive spying of government agents under a pretense of unjustified paranoia as their reason. That cannot be allowed because it violates the separation between public and private life, and if that is not secure, then happiness will rapidly decrease until nobody is happy and they find solidarity in their hatred for the government. Then there is social unrest, rebellion, and at worst anarchy.

Second: what is to be done about a racist person?

Imagine you are black and you are confronted by a KKK member while out in public minding your own business. Do you ignore them and walk away? Do you do something systematically violent like reporting them to the authorities? Or do you confront them yourself?

The correct answer is the last one, and that is because that is how you counteract racist beliefs. You confront them, correct them, and in best cases remove the racism from the person’s perspective. If you do nothing about it and are hateful and agressive to white people in retaliation, that only makes matters worse, and does nothing to eliminate racism. So, if you have a problem tell them what it is. Tell them they are wrong, why, and be able to explain yourself. You should always be able to explain why racism is wrong because you should not be objectivied materially as though the qualities of your flesh and blood body indicate your worth as a human being.

When I go off the rails on a rant, I want people to confront me, and if they don’t, I suppose I am correct and they know it, so I proceed onward. If that is not the case, then say something. If you never say a word to a person you think is a fool, then you do not know them well enough to condemn them as a fool, and become the fool yourself. So, before you condemn people for a disagreement of belief because you think you know better, ensure you try to enlighten them first. That does not need to be exhaustive in effort, but you should at least spare a word to assert your disagreement so they know they are challenged.

Third: I forgot