Postscript: Questioning "terrorism"

Engaging with Questions of Higher Order: cognitive vigilance required for higher degrees of twistedness (Part #14)

[Parts: First | Prev | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The above arguments raise the possibility of a higher order of questioning in response to "terrorism" -- a manner of engaging cognitively, and with greatrer maturity, with what it is claimed to be:

• Who is providing the information defining the threat and urging action? Who benefits from the threat? Who cultivates fear? Who is disguising an undeclared agenda by stressing the threat of terrorism? Who can offer insights to reframe threat?
• Why is terrorism being promoted as a threat? Why are the most insightful so easily convinced? Why do the most insightful delay so long in protesting poorly substantiated framings of threat?
• How do people acquire power in democracies enabling them to manipulate evidence in support of undemocratic agendas? How can genuine threats be distinguished from fabrications? How should people act in response to those promoting fear in society?
• Where are people to turn for undistorted perspectives? Where are genuine threats liable to come from? Where do people acquire susceptibility to threat?
• What can individuals do in an environment in which the most eminent are complicit in the distortion of evidence? What can be done by a society whose most healthy processes are undermined by paranoia? What are the real threats to well-being in society? What can most beneifically be learnt under the peculiar circumstances of collective paranoia?
• When should people consider evidence of threats to be unsubstantiated? When should they act in response to poorly substantiated threats? When will society acquire the maturity to avoid traumatization by threat?
• Which insights are most valuable in fruitfully reframing the challenge of terrorism?