No, I DON'T do binaries or twosiderism

In a recent fairly long blogpost I made about a post at M.L. Clark's "Another White Atheist in Columbia," among it, I said I thought she was engaging in twosiderism, not just on that particular post but in general, and that brought it to a head.

She then said (while accepting the critique about lengthiness) that she thought I WAS engaged in "binaries," as she called it.

Erm, no.

I pointed out to her that I had just called out Shem for seemingly doing twosiderism on abortion. (That's one reason I don't write much about it. I've moved beyond worries of family disapproval, but still don't think my sis is a self-hating woman. And, per the second part, and my vociferous rejection of twosiderism on this issue, I regularly whip out Nat Hentoff, though I'm not a pro-lifer, but in the muddy middle. The lies fly fast and furious on both of the two stereotyped sides on this issue. One presumable abortion-on-demand wingnut said that Hentoff et al are actually religious. Well, I'm taking care of seeing said person online again.)

And, at least six sides present themselves on this issue:
1. Religious prolifers
2. Religious prochoicers
3. Religious in the muddy middle
4. Secular prolifers
5. Secular prochoicers
6. Secular in the muddy middle

Outside of that, I've regularly called out twosiderism on Mueller/Russiagate and Assange. There's off the top of my head, four or five important sides on each of those issues.

And with this, decided I needed to do a post just on this issue, with new blog tag.

If she had dodged the lengthiness issue, that would have been the only thing I would have objected to more. The kumbaya and other similar stuff? If she'd defended that on style grounds, I would have been OK. Even the religious mindreading, I would have only halfway objected back if she objected.

But, the older I get, the more and more I consciously work to fight twosiderism in myself as well as call it out elsewhere.

I did quote old friend Idries Shah at the end, after all.

I'm also outside the two duopoly parties.

I've said that business issues of Big Ag companies who make GMOs need to be separated from science issues.

I've not rejected CRISPR for ag use while at the same time saying that we are probably pushing it too fast.

I take a lot of hell for it politically on things like calling out Tulsi Gabbard Kool-Aid drinkers from a non-twosider perspective, or saying that Hiroshima, and even Nagasaki, weren't uniquely evil and were the "least bad option," in both cases.

At this point, it's time to close with old friend Idries Shah:

And this one from Shah is good, too. I am working to apply it more and more to myself.

And I really mean that. The older I get, beyond "twosiderism," the more I know the world is not blacks and whites and the more I consciously work against that in myself as well as with others.

Now, it's true that we're not always perfect observers of ourselves. I accept that, too.

But, Ms. Clark is not a follower of my blog. She's never commented here. Having come across her via Shem, I've never seen her comment on one of my comments on his blog.

So, no, I'll reject from her at least the idea that I engage in binaries.

Unless, to go Borges or Gödel, Escher, Bach, I engage in the division of people into the binaries of ...

         Those who accept binaries and those who don't.

==

Actually, it's time to close with two others, one a site, one a person.

The Oracle at Delphi:  γνῶθι σεαυτόν, or in English, know thyself.

Shakespeare: To thine own self be true.