my two cents.
I believe this topic and discussion is about each person's two cents. I will try to define what exactly "two cents" means. Two cents is an odd amount of money, so obscure, that it becomes its own kind of currency. No-one intrinsically cares much for the amount of two cents, the value given to the two cents, comes from regarding it as a token of who provided his/her "two cents".
We all want special attention given to our particular interests, the problem with sharing an obscure interest, is that it requires some kind of mutual attraction toward a shared investment, of time and mental-energy, in the communication of the obscure interest (or topic). I would hazard that most people are interested in sharing something that's rarely considered socially-useful, as a topic for discussion, sx types are better at accessing this capacity, but still, even if you get beneath the regulative purview of the relevant 'social paradigm', there is another level;— of personality based politics, that comes into play. Compatibility on a topic's communication, is hard to discover when "regular culture" attaches taboo's to the significance of a point of view, then also, an "internal" version of moral authority operates, as a kind of relevancy filter, that will manifest as feeling impatient or uninterested in the various spectrum of topics— which exist outside of "practical concern". Personally, I think people's internal states', are important to look-after, and so I think I am particularly well trained in compassionately auditing other people's topics of interest, also because I'm interested in helping with the (existential) plight: which these personal contentions usually contain. The Kantian principle of treating people as ends in themselves is perhaps applicable here... and also the pinnacle of friendship described by Plato.
The original post in this thread, is perhaps asking a kind of a question, which is linked more closely with a spiritual question: why are most people 'dead' to sharing in a communion, in the realm of mental contemplation? The answer is probably tied up with that old adage, about keeping talk of politics and religion at the dinner table, kept as a normative taboo.
To continue in the view of a broader topic of discussion- modern culture, is growing further dependent on a spiritual development just to keep itself propped up against the weight of its own impending implosion. At some level, politics can only grow more toxic and atomized without having some reference to an understanding of the psychological component in people.
Psychology as it's considered by the Academy, is totally ineffectual and incapable of breaking out of its pre-scientific stalemate. It doesn't have the philosophical rigor with which to extend its discovery, into something that could be a recognized as an empirical account of the mind. [put in link to chomsky saying psychology is pre-scientific]. To further illustrate my point, the academy has no way to fathom or grapple with the approximate validity of typology, its unable even to touch the subject because it's philosophically inept at its core; intellectually bankrupt— one could use the modern economic predicament as the perfect analogy to the self-delusion perpetrated by this superficial field, while it begs neuroscience to confirm its basic philosophical prejudices about itself.
Psychology could be summed up as sharing the same rot, rooted by the fake-empirical 'Scientific' framework,— this philosophical foundation, used by the hard sciences, manages to neatly disguise the source from which any coherency (and truth) might be discovered.
Going back to society at large: similar behavior is occurring at the level of political consciousness- rhetoric that depends on external authorities that can be used to test policy claims, are dividing people into authoritative sects, each peddling their brand of moral-narrative— to the image of a compatibility, within their own personality style (such psychological forces have marked the historical and cultural development of politics since earliest record). What's different now, is that communication technology gives people the insight that would usually take many generations of experience to collect.. people (virtually) have an extended memory, if they so wish, because they can hear about what's happening in all these different countries, at the relative pictures of history that they are providing to us, in real time. And people want to transcend patterns of the limitation they are witnessing, because for once the individual has the extended access to make the 'spiritual' deficit prominent, within the foreground of psyche (and so, this virtual communion, has increased the appeal of a development in understanding liberty (which is a focus on deeper "spirituality", although people yearn to see that liberty expressed on a tangible level));- now some have already sublimated this angst latent within this present Zeitgeist, into the sect of Scientism: decided on blindly going-on with a search to discover "the answer" in the form of an external authority, offered by some factoid that vindicates a deterministic model of control over human pursuits. Diverting attention away from the scale of the full challenge, by acquiescing to a cheap philosophical gimmick, neatly permitted by the generous chasm that is the shill for 'the corrupt project', which has become 'the Academy', and taking the weight of the whole project into a nebulous psychology, that exists to be the nexus of accommodation for the hard science's [craft of] "dominance". This is the same fashion of ideology that has been mimicked by the 'regressive left', and third wave feminism, who all sink silently when challenged outside of the dogmatic edifice of misappropriated philosophical clout.
Fascism is literally at the door, but we know whose rung the door-bell, because we have a camera streaming it live. Only by forging a solid collaboration, which develops from a complete psychological understanding, offering its security of mutual respect and self-knowledge, will produce a household [politically] capable of keeping the abyss on the other side of the locked door, united in its refrain from the mistake of opening the door to fascism. The academy draws half of its authority by mimicking the political strategy through an inherent promise of narrative dominion, in the fabrication it uses for a philosophical edifice (which contains a stupidity that must deprecate both humanity and "reality", in its failing to capture knowledge of either, by designing a sense of "empirical" that offends reasoning).
Science gets away with asking for something unreal because people believe it deserves the pride accorded to it. This is a similar trend in contemporary political ideology (and obtuse forms of philosophical discourse, ie philosophical Skepticism, that can use a form of self-pity, to make everything about how its relating the world to itself, through its own limited schema).
In conclusion, the pace of cultural development, from the acceleration of consciousness offered to it (by communications technology), demands a certain resolution: the problem is, that organisation is not the basic "state of nature", if there is a (real) revolution at all to come, it must be built from the middle, not the top or bottom, and that means contending with all the pertinent issues in the middle, and having access from the middle to influence both the top and bottom quarters of our [matrix-]"system". The middle analogy, is the best analogy I can make for describing the style of the South African Revolution of 1994;- compassion for the victims, and compassion for the perpetrators: because the narratives of "the enemy" is only ever ignored with the cost of duplicating the oppression— which is too tangential for me to lay out in this post, but Hegelian dialectical-thinking would probably be my approximate point on this issue, the enemy is only conquered when "their" internal reasoning is understood to be mistaken, because there is a working resolve that exceeds any lingering specter of indictment (from the old ways), by its present works: shirking this path of transformation, leads to turmoil, idealistic peddling that will either make people into lemmings, or destroy the broader potential our society contains.
