Ideosynosis

With the help of a biased media, the politicians are able to spread this sort of behaviour to an eager and frightened public.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" - and that fear comes in many forms, from direct fear of terrorism, to the insecurities we face in our everyday lives, relationships, jobs, etc..

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering." - Only when we fight fear at it's most elemental level (in ourselves) can we see a significant change in the attitudes of the masses. Through faith, faith in life, faith in others and faith in beliefs, if you choose, you can find the strength to fight the insecurities in yourself.

Thought creates. This much is true, and there must be something wrong with the thoughts of the Western society, if this sort of future is what we are creating.

Good word Lerkfish. Also look up the term cognitive dissonance.

Heh Western society came up with that first line.

"Fear is the path to the dark side... fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate.. hate leads to suffering." --Master Yoda

or like, 'You are either with us or against us' ~

Master Yoda is a Taoist and would resent the fact that you connected him to Western society. Seriously though, George Lucas wrote that line, yes he is American, but not everyone in Western Society is on the Dark side.

Who was is that said "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?" I disagree with that - I do think consistency is important. But I think sometimes inconsistency is sometimes superficial, and used as a rhetorical device.

For example, with capital punishment and abortion, being "for" one and "against" the other could be described as being inconsistent, but I think it depends on what your principles are. For someone pro-choice and anti-death-penalty, the key issue is a mistrust of government power. For someone pro-life and pro-death-penalty, the principle might be protection of the innocent but not the guilty. I guess the key is thinking through your principles, and most of us just don't do that very often. The funny thing about the term cognitive dissonance is that, according to the theory of cognitive dissonance, we should be motivated to reduce dissonance, and yet, as Lerk points out, we tend to live with it.

Why do you need a new word - your definition appears to neatly define an old one ... 'Republican'

Master Yoda was also for war when it was needed.

There are good and bad people everywhere. Not just in the Western Society. But I appreciate you lumping it all into one group.

The US did what it wanted to, came up with it's own "society" and media and such. It's is not our fault that so many out of this country grasp onto thing of our Society.

I know when I was in Argentina I had people offering me huge sums of money for Levis jeans because they came from the US. Jeans that I had worn for awhile. It was nuts.

well, I included two examples, that could be loosely defined as conservative and liberal (very loosely).
My point was NOT to castigate one side or another, but just point out the process or condition of ideosynosis and how its interesting that we can function quite well, albeit to others we appear inconsistent, to ourselves it makes a sort of bizarre sense.

Messiah!!! Funny!!! Who knew?!?
thanks, christ.
::wipes coffespew off keyboard::

I think you need to add a pronunciation guide and etymology.

Maybe he should get a job as well, or actually do some work at the job you currently hold.

LOL! if you only knew how much and how hard I work, especially right now due to war coverage.

Emerson and he said "a foolish consistency..."

I disagree. Rather than live with the cognitive dissonance people often change their beliefs.

Or Democrat.

Purple Monkey Dishwasher!

Gonna take up the opposite side of the argument: sure consistency is important, and sure sometimes it's superficial. But sometimes holding completely disparate things in one's mind at once (insofar as one can) is essential for understanding something more completely.

The idea is not unlike the power of a metaphor: in yoking together two disparate things one acquires strength in description, power, even poetry.

The knowledge comes perhaps from the contrast: so, unlike Lerk, I will say there is rarely a synthesis of ideas that clash, since everything interesting about the juxtaposition is erased when ideas get smoothed over into each other.

Nice thread.

All life is sacred, born and unborn YET I avocate the deaths of my enemy, or those I deem not innocent.

I don't think those are intrinsically incompatible positions. I may think all life is sacred. I may feel it appropriate to kill in certain circumstances. I would hope that those Americans in Iraq killing the Iraqis are doing so with an appreciation of the lives they are taking. I suspect many of them will remember the faces and bodies the rest of their lives.

Sometimes killing is necessary. It doesn't mean that the lives shed are somehow undeserving of life. It just means that sometimes horrible things are the only solution. We ought to shed a tear and a prayer for the Iraqis just as much as we do for our own dead servicemen.

Ideosynosis:
1. The ability to hold two apparently contradictory concepts as true
2. combining two separate distinct and opposing ideologies into a third.

By definition, though, the ideosynoptic person would NOT view them as contradictory, but others would/might.

Should the adjective have a 'p' in it? I would tend toward 'ideosynotic' myself, but its your word, you can do what you like with it!

oh! good point.

Ah - it's been a while since I've read Dirk Gently's Holisitic Detective Agency, but the Electric Monk does seem relevant here...

-s*

Couldn't they be called ideosynoptites?

This word also raises the need for another neologism, the definition for which is:

1. The ability to hold two definitely contradictory concepts as true
2. the inability to see that the two concepts are, in fact, contradictory.

I await this much needed word.