A judge in Tennessee provided us this week another demonstration of being embedded in our own thinking and the poor judgment that can ensue. He refused to grant divorce to a straight couple, explaining…and I paraphrase…”Well, if the Supreme Court can tell us what is and is not marriage then I must wait until they take the next step and announce what divorce is.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/04/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/)
This judge is voicing a conservative trope that is in the vogue currently, “judicial tyranny.” The Supreme Court’s decisions have repeatedly rebuffed them in recent years and they are peeved, taking the stance that they are being treated unfairly rather than considering that their views, though valid for them and others like them, and not valid for everyone. But his petulant, childish stance on this matter demonstrates the extent to which the issues are emotional, i.e. “unconscious”, rather than rational. And that is the issue with “embedded thinking,” those who are plagued with this malady have made an inordinate emotional (unconscious) investment in a vein of thought, ideology, which makes it impossible to reason with them. They do not “think”, they are “thought.” This makes me think of something a high school counselor told me one time, “Arguing with a teen ager is like wrestling with a pig: You both get muddy and the pig likes it.”
Of course, I’m posed with a dilemma with this vein of “thought” I am sharing in that this “embedded thinking” is called “reality” and anyone who stands removed from this “embedded thinking” and criticizes it is also standing outside of “reality” and is therefore…ahem, cough, cough…nuts! Well, in a sense this is true, but only in a sense. “Embedded thinking” evolved because it gives the tribe the comfort necessary to go about the business of day-to-day life. And we need those who will fulfill this God ordained task. But my concern is that our investment in our “embedded thinking” could back off a little here and there and we would find that we could be a little more inclusive of those that we had been erstwhile dismissive of. And “backing off” would not imperil our way of thinking but it would imperil our investment in it and, related to this, our investment in our self, or ego, and would be a step in the direction of getting over our self. And I’m working on this myself!