I’ve written pretty extensively about the Five of Swords before. Essentially, it is a card of change and conflict.
It turned up again for me today, as I faced contention and disdain over some of my political convictions. I won’t go into the specifics here, beyond disclosing that I sometimes express what I consider to be well-informed and heartfelt opinions that defy whatever is left of American political consensus. When one expresses disdain for both of the major political parties, and for our political economy in general, it seems to ruffle a lot of feathers.
I’m trying to find a way to be more deliberate in expressing such opinions. I do believe that it’s important that someone challenge conventional wisdom, particularly when that “wisdom” has led us to increasing disfunction, unpleasantness and peril. On the other hand, I do not like being the target of folks’ ire, particularly when some of those folks are people with whom I have shared moments of friendship, inspiration and joy.
So this card, for me, at this time, represents questions about the nature of conflict in political discourse and how to approach it. I don’t have the answers yet, or maybe even all of the questions – but at least I’ve begun to consider the problem in an intentional way.
Jon S says
Dialogue can be a powerful way to honor the humanity of both involved parties. It requires each person to articulate their views and be willing to critically examine them, and at its best moves people closer to Truth and to each other.
Of course, dialogue can also be used cynically to give a semblance of listening without making any meaningful change. I have two metrics for assessing whether this is the case: a person’s willingness to examine their core assumptions and the possibility that they could be wrong, and whether critical dialogic reflection actually leads them to change their actions. The first can happen during attempted dialogue; the second requires a more long-term perspective.
Unfortunately social media tends to be a poor context for meaningful dialogue, lacking all the nuance of tone and body language. And if the Randall you mentioned is the one I know, I would not characterize him as a person of high critical self-awareness.
Noebie says
In this instance, he was the least of my concerns. 🙂
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Jon. You make me a better person.