If there's one thing I remember reading about Ki-Adi-Mundi just after the release of Episode I, it's that his binary brain allowed him to contemplate both the Light and Dark sides of the Force.

Back then, I found that whole idea intriguing--a Jedi who could simultaneously hold contradictory viewpoints. I might go so far as to say it's one of the first things that drew me to Ki-Adi. There's a part of me that's sad that more hasn't been done with this concept; alas, though it still gets mentioned in reference books, I have yet to see a plot point that tackles it or even any real mention of it in narrative-style writing.

But this idea of dual-beliefs seems to be rearing its head in my life of late. And it reminds me that we all ought to sometimes look at things from the viewpoint of those we disagree with. As Bertrand Russell said, "It's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted."

We all ought to have a little Cerean in us.

I was reminded of this again today, when our class had a discussion on the Oedipus Complex. I could simultaneously formulate arguments for both its viability and its unlikelihood.

I've noticed a drastic increase in my ability to do this ever since coming to college. While I could certainly look at things from others' points of view before, I'd never been able to hold to opposing views in my head simultaneously quite like I've been able to do lately.

And I think this is important. In the case of the Oedipus Complex, even if I don't believe it, it helps to know where Freud was coming from. He didn't just make up the idea; he drew a conclusion from some evidence. And even if I disagree with his conclusion, I need to reach my own conclusion by looking at that same evidence. Even the most wacko theory contains a kernel of truth, something that inspired it in the first place. And if we can get down to these roots, we have a much better chance of discovering where it is that those we disagree with are coming from, and can use that to reach common ground.

This strikes me as a technique lost in the current political world. People tend to spew angry vitriol instead of truly looking at what their opponents think and, more importantly, why they think what they do.

I rediscover this attitude of dismissal every time I try to talk to my grandma. I respect her, and I think she has some valuable opinions... but she always tows the left-wing line, to the point where I can't bring up some of my opinions. Or I at least know that if I do, she won't even take a moment to consider them; she'll dismiss them and be developing a counter-argument before I even finish speaking. My girlfriend suffers from the same problem, ironically, though her grandmother is to the far right.

And I've had conversations with a guy who goes to my church who's the same way. I like him, and I'm happy to talk to him, but when the subject turns to politics, I can do little more than listen unhappily. He demonizes Democrats to such a degree that I think he honestly believes they have ill intentions for the country at large. It's impossible to have an open political discussion with him.

And, of course, it cuts both ways. Just today, I read an article in The Week magazine discussing the current presidential campaign. Referring to Hillary Clinton, it said, "In her candidacy, which drives conservatives mad, Democrats see the promise of sweet revenge." Have we really reached a point where support for candidates includes a revenge factor?

If we opened our eyes, I think we would find a lot in common with those on the other side of the aisle. The sooner we admit that no matter what party you're from, you have the country's best interests at heart, the better. We had an interesting discussion about abortion the other day in my philosophy class. We discussed the nature of the argument, though, not the argument itself. What came out of it is that both pro-choice and pro-life people are against the taking of innocent life. By-and-large, the pro-choice aren't the immoral pigs the pro-lifers make them out to be, and by-and-large the pro-life aren't the religious zealots that pro-choicers make them out to be. In truth, they have an empirical disagreement as to when life begins. And that's all.

We could all benefit from a little bit of a Cerean perspective now and then. If we were just willing to contemplate our adversaries' viewpoints and hold them in our minds for a little while, we could at the very least discover where they were coming from. And when we understand that, we have made the first major step towards finding common ground.



Comments are welcome; however, I ask that you try to steer clear of commenting on some of the specifics I brought up (e.g. Hillary Clinton, abortion), and instead focus on the spirit of this post. If you find that you must voice your opinion on the particulars, I just ask that you keep it as cordial as possible.