I agree that there will always be disputes, but the part of the Ground that we can stand on is "Murder is wrong." Even if there are caveats just having some established values like that is important. But even more trivial concerns than murder are part of the Ground, specifically how we believe we should interact with each other when in disputes over the correct direction for society.
Right, but the problem comes in in how we take the "fact" of "murder is wrong and operationalize it to the real world. In other words, how do we define it and identify it. It's plausible to call any killing murder. It's also plausible to consider some killing not murder. And so our values, that is our judgement, will determine where to apply it and where not to.
I think you might be on to something with the heaviness of allegory...but if you could go more into detail that would be much appreciated...
Well, it was something that just sprang to mind while I was typing. It's something about an allegory being a sort of, I guess you could say, a story where characters embody abstract principles and then play out scenarios. The myth though, is based in more archetypal content. Still "abstract" in a sense, but in a far less "rational" manner. So, an allegory would more be able "freedom" and a myth about "self-love." I mean, it makes sense, because now-a-days, we fancy ourselves all fully rational, fully conscious creatures. So we tell ourselves stories about how rational and conscious we are. But the truth is far closer to the fact that we really aren't. So we ditch any stories that don't fit our paradigm.
For myself I think the mythic resonance is being leeched out of our institutions, so the unifying power of being blessed to be in a democracy is downgraded. I also think the notion of having to sacrifice for your Principles is leeched away, the priority given to demanding someone else acquiesce to the Principles you hold.
Well, we are pretty sacrifice averse now too. Because we live lives, generally, for those of us who are at liberty to type this kind of shit out on the internet, that feature very little sacrifice. Pretty much whatever we need, we go to the store and buy. In fact, the very conception of sacrifice is largely lost of people now, I think.
Additionally we have to admit the good of reality tunnels we dislike - so for my liberal self better the conservative who wants to be a guardian for women as daughters of God than the misogynist who thinks women are cum dumpsters that can be raped with impunity, or the one who is against gay marriage but not throwing gays off rooftops. A sustaining of the Ground is the proper cultivation of the opponents who we prefer and could respect - but of course if the bar is set so no one to the right/left is of value then the Ground itself is chipped away.
Well, this might well be an effect of our "global culture" that is easily the worst aspect of it all: the idea that there can be only one right way to live. There simply cannot be any other ways which might work. This isn't my idea, it one from Daniel Quinn's works (for better or worse). It isn't something explicitly ever stated, but is implicit in every single aspect of these kinds of disagreements. Liberals are sure it is only correct to be liberal, and conservatives that it is only correct to be conservative. It cannot be the case that it might be OK to live a life on either side.
As for Truth being life-negating...perhaps, perhaps not. But has enough mind-share been given to the Life Affirming side? Quilette doesn't seem to care, they seem intent on expounding about free thought even as at least a few of the authors cut at the fabric that gives words like "Freedom" and "Thought" value in this life.
Well, that I'm not sure about. But if it's true, perhaps fundamental truth is a bad aim. Perhaps something more like inter-subjective truth, or better yet, lived systems of what works and what doesn't.