The Bridge Between What Divides Us

This is a companion piece to How Did Critical Thinking Become Betrayal? and The Divided States of America: Finding Balance in a Polarized World. Read those first for the foundational framework… then come back here for practical application.

There are questions people carry in silence right now… questions about the people they love, the systems they live inside, the lies that circulate without consequence.

These are not theoretical questions. They land at kitchen tables. In family group chats. In the quiet after the news is turned off.

What follows are real questions… the kind people ask when the frameworks have been understood but the living hasn't gotten easier. There are no perfect answers. But there are starting points… and ancient patterns that help us see where we stand.

Reader Questions: Practical Applications

The following questions came from readers who, like many of us, are struggling with how to apply these principles in the real world.

Each answer draws on the Seven Hermetic Principles... ancient observations about how reality operates that remain startlingly relevant to our modern predicament.

When Reason Hits a Wall

Q1: "What do we do when someone on the other side absolutely refuses to reason, or won't condemn violence from their own 'tribe?'"

This is one of the hardest situations to navigate, and it's worth being honest: you cannot force someone to think. What you can do is manage yourself.

What You're Actually Dealing With

When someone cannot condemn violence or harm committed by "their side," they're not operating from reason. They're operating from identity fusion. The group has become self. Condemning the group feels like condemning themselves, and the psyche will do almost anything to avoid that.

This isn't stupidity. It's a protective mechanism gone haywire.

What You Can Do

• Stop trying to win. Arguments that feel like attacks will only deepen their defensive posture. You're not going to logic someone out of identity fusion.
• Ask questions instead of making statements. "How do you think about situations where someone on "your side" does something that would upset you if the "other side" did it?" is more effective than accusation. Questions invite reflection. Accusations invite walls.
• Model the behavior you want to see. Be willing to criticize your own side publicly. When they see you doing it without losing your sense of self, it plants a seed that this is possible.
• Manage your own nervous system. When someone refuses to condemn atrocity, your outrage is understandable. But outrage doesn't produce change in them, it just destabilizes you. You can hold moral clarity without emotional dysregulation.
• Accept that some people are unreachable right now. Not forever. But right now. And that's okay. You're not responsible for their awakening. You're responsible for your own.

"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into." — Often attributed to Jonathan Swift

On Not Going Crazy About News Stories

The news is designed to make you crazy. Outrage drives engagement. If you're feeling destabilized by news, that's not weakness — it's the intended effect of a machine built to harvest your attention through emotional intensity.

• Limit exposure. You don't need to consume news all day to be informed. Once a day is enough.
• Choose your sources carefully. Seek sources that inform rather than inflame.
• Notice when you're being manipulated. When a headline makes you furious before you've even read the article, pause. That's a flag.
• Take action when possible. Channel the energy into something constructive rather than letting it spin inside you.

Changing the System Without Burning It Down

Q2: "How can we change the system while still letting the oligarchy have their money? I don't care if they're rich, I care that it's costing us democracy."

This is a mature framing, and it opens real possibilities. The goal isn't to destroy wealth, it's to prevent wealth from destroying democratic function.

Ideas That Address Both Sides of the Equation

• Radical transparency over regulation. Instead of trying to limit money in politics, demand complete, real-time transparency. Every dollar, every donor, every expenditure... visible to everyone, instantly. Sunlight as disinfectant. The wealthy can still spend, but everyone sees exactly who is buying what.
• Algorithmic accountability. The platforms that amplify polarization are private companies, but they function as public infrastructure. Push for transparency in algorithmic design. Not content censorship, process visibility. Let people see why they're being shown what they're being shown.
• Support alternative business models. The current media landscape is broken because it's funded by engagement-based advertising. Support subscription models, nonprofit journalism, and public media that doesn't need to make you angry to survive.
• Localism. National politics is where the big money flows because that's where the leverage is. Local politics is harder to buy and easier to influence as an individual. Re-investing energy in local governance creates democratic muscle that's harder to capture.
• Coalition-building around shared interests. The wealthy aren't monolithic. Some benefit from polarization; some are harmed by it. Finding allies among those who have power but share the goal of functional democracy is more effective than treating all wealth as the enemy.

"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." — Plato

You don't have to defeat wealth to reduce its corrosive effects. You have to make its influence visible and create alternatives.

Spreading Critical Thinking Without Becoming a Preacher

Q3: "How can someone help spread critical thinking and get involved in setting the ego aside?"

Start With Yourself

This isn't deflection, it's strategic. You can't teach what you don't practice.

The most powerful way to spread critical thinking is to embody it visibly.

• Practice intellectual humility publicly. When you're wrong, say so. When you change your mind, explain why. When you don't know, admit it. This is shockingly rare and shockingly influential.
• Ask questions more than you make statements. Good questions invite thought. Statements invite defense or agreement. Be the person who asks, "What would change your mind about this?"
• Create spaces for dialogue, not debate. Debate is about winning. Dialogue is about understanding. Host conversations, even small ones, where the goal is mutual exploration rather than victory.
• Share content that models nuance. When you find writing or media that holds complexity without collapsing into tribalism, amplify it. What you share shapes the information environment of everyone around you.
• Work with young people. Critical thinking is easier to cultivate than to restore. Mentorship, teaching, or simply having real conversations with younger generations plants seeds that may bear fruit for decades.

"We should not expect individuals to produce good, open-minded, truth-seeking reasoning, particularly when self-interest or reputational concerns are in play. But if you put individuals together in the right way… you can create a group that ends up producing good reasoning as an emergent property of the social system." — Jonathan Haidt

On Setting the Ego Aside

The ego doesn't like to be set aside. It fights.

What helps:

• Notice when you're defending a position because it's yours rather than because it's right. That feeling of "I can't back down now" is ego talking.
• Cultivate genuine curiosity about people you disagree with. Curiosity and ego can't occupy the same space.
• Remember that being wrong is how you learn. Every time you discover you were wrong, you've become slightly less wrong. That's growth.

When Politics Tears Families Apart

Q4: "What about families being torn apart? People saying they'll never speak to a relative again because of political beliefs. How do we stop that?"

This one is personal for many people… and it's worth taking seriously.

Some Perspective

Family estrangement over politics is historically common during periods of intense polarization. It happened during the Civil War. It happened during the 1960s. It's not new. And it's not permanent for most families, though it can take years or decades to heal.

Why It Happens

When politics becomes identity, a family member's political position feels like a statement about who they are as a person. If my sister supports X, and I believe X is morally monstrous, then my sister must be morally monstrous. And how can I have a relationship with someone morally monstrous?

The logic is clean. The result is devastating.

What Helps

• Separate the person from the position. Your father is not his vote. Your sister is not her Facebook posts. They are complex humans who have lived entire lives, most of which have nothing to do with the political position that's bothering you. This is hard. It's also true.
• Ask yourself: "Will this matter in twenty years?" Not the issue, the estrangement. On your deathbed, will you be glad you didn't speak to your brother for two decades because of how he felt about a policy? Most people regret estrangement. Few regret reconciliation.
• Set boundaries without severing. You don't have to discuss politics with family. "I love you, and I don't want to talk about this because it damages our relationship" is a complete sentence.
• Remember that people change. The position your family member holds today may not be the position they hold in five years. If you sever the relationship, you won't be there to see the change, or to influence it.
• Look for the values beneath the position. Often, people on opposite sides of an issue actually share underlying values but disagree about how to achieve them. Finding shared values can create connection even amid disagreement.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." — Aristotle

The Hardest Truth

Sometimes, estrangement is necessary... when a relationship is genuinely abusive, when contact causes serious harm, when boundaries are repeatedly violated. This isn't about forcing people to maintain toxic relationships.

But most political estrangement isn't about abuse. It's about pain, disappointment, and the sense that someone we love has become a stranger. That can heal. Walking away forever makes sure it never will.

When Silence Itself Becomes Suspect

Q5: "What if even saying 'I don't want to talk politics' makes them think you're against them? And why do we tolerate obvious lies that have been fact-checked but never corrected?"

When "I'd rather not discuss this" gets interpreted as "you're one of them," you're not dealing with a political disagreement anymore. You're dealing with a loyalty test disguised as conversation.

Why Neutrality Reads as Betrayal

In a binary worldview, there are only two positions: us and them. If you're not loudly, enthusiastically us, you must be them. Silence is suspect. Nuance is suspect. Even the attempt to preserve the relationship by avoiding conflict becomes evidence that you've been corrupted.

This is cult logic. And it's not limited to any one political tribe, it shows up on both ends of the spectrum.

What You Can Actually Do

• Name the dynamic without attacking the person. "I notice that when I try to take a break from politics, it feels like that upsets you. I'm not trying to reject you, I'm trying to protect our relationship. Can we find a way to be family without this being the only thing we talk about?"
• Find non-political common ground and build from there. Shared meals. Shared memories. Shared hobbies. The more relational tissue exists outside of politics, the harder it is for politics to consume everything.
• Accept that you may need distance, without making it permanent. "I love you, and I need some space right now. That's not forever. But I can't keep doing this." Distance isn't the same as estrangement. It's a boundary.
• Don't try to win. Don't try to convert. Just stay human. Every interaction where you remain calm, kind, and non-reactive plants a seed. You won't see it grow. But over time, your steadiness becomes data that contradicts the narrative that everyone who disagrees is a monster.
• Grieve what you've lost... for now. Sometimes you have to mourn the relationship you had before politics consumed it. That grief is real. Honoring it doesn't mean giving up hope. It means being honest about the present.

Why We Tolerate Obvious Lies

This is one of the most disorienting features of our current moment: lies that have been publicly, definitively fact-checked continue to be repeated, and nothing happens.

Why?

Repetition Beats Correction

A lie repeated a thousand times has more psychological weight than a correction stated once. By the time the fact-check appears, the lie has already lodged in memory. And corrections often inadvertently reinforce the lie by repeating it.

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." — Often attributed to Mark Twain

For True Believers, Fact-Checks Are Enemy Propaganda

If you've been told that all mainstream media is corrupt, that fact-checkers are biased, that the "establishment" is lying to you, then a fact-check doesn't disprove the lie. It confirms that the lie must be true, because "they" are trying to suppress it.

This is epistemic closure: a sealed information environment where contradictory evidence is automatically discredited.

Loyalty Matters More Than Accuracy

For people deep in tribal identity, the question isn't "is this true?" The question is "does this serve our side?" A useful lie is better than a harmful truth. Admitting the lie would be giving ammunition to the enemy.

There Are No Consequences

If lying costs nothing and gains supporters, why stop? The incentive structure rewards dishonesty. Until there are real consequences... electoral, legal, social, the behavior will continue.

Exhaustion Is a Strategy

When lies come so fast and so relentlessly that you can't keep up, many people just… stop trying. They disengage. They assume everything is a lie, or nothing is, and either way they stop paying attention. This is the firehose of falsehood, and it's an intentional tactic.

So What Do We Do About It?

• Stop expecting shame to work. People who lie without consequence aren't going to suddenly feel embarrassed because you pointed out the lie.
• Focus on the persuadable middle. The true believers won't change. But there are always people watching who haven't fully committed. Speak to them. Make the case clearly, calmly, with evidence.
• Support institutions that maintain standards. Journalism, courts, academia, election systems, these are imperfect, but they're the infrastructure of shared reality. When they erode, lies flourish.
• Model intellectual honesty yourself. Admit when your side gets something wrong. Correct your own mistakes publicly. Be the person who cares about truth regardless of which tribe it benefits.
• Refuse to let lies go unchallenged... but don't make it your whole life. You can't fact-check everything. Pick your battles. But when something egregious happens, say something. Silence can read as consent.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." — Often attributed to Edmund Burke

Your job isn't to single-handedly fix this. Your job is to remain a person who cares about truth, who maintains relationships where possible, who sets boundaries where necessary, and who refuses to become the mirror image of what you're opposing.

Historical Examples: When Opposing Ideologies Worked Together

One of the most powerful antidotes to despair is evidence that cooperation across divides is possible. It's been done before. It can be done again.

The Great Compromise of 1787

The Constitutional Convention nearly collapsed over the question of representation. Large states wanted proportional power. Small states wanted equality. These weren't minor disagreements, they were existential threats to the entire project.

The solution: the bicameral legislature. Neither side got everything. Both sides got enough.

What made it work: shared recognition that failure meant disaster… willingness to accept partial victory… focus on the future over the past.

The Marshall Plan and Post-WWII Europe (1948)

Four years after the bloodiest war in human history, the United States invested billions in rebuilding the economies of former enemies, including Germany. This wasn't charity. It was strategic.

What made it work: enlightened self-interest… forward-looking framing… institutional structures that gave European nations a framework for collaboration.

The Good Friday Agreement (Northern Ireland, 1998)

For thirty years, Northern Ireland was torn apart by sectarian violence. Thousands died. Hatred ran deep.

The Good Friday Agreement didn't resolve the underlying disagreement, it contained it. Both communities were given representation. Both identities were acknowledged. The border question was deferred rather than decided.

What made it work:

• Exhaustion. After three decades, people were tired of violence.
• External support. The US, UK, and Ireland all invested in the process.
• Creative ambiguity. The agreement allowed both sides to interpret certain provisions in ways that aligned with their identities.
• Personal relationships. Key leaders from opposing sides developed genuine trust through years of negotiation.

"Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it." — Mahatma Gandhi

The Blue Dog Coalition (United States, 1995–present)

After the 1994 Republican wave, a group of moderate Democrats formed the Blue Dog Coalition. Rather than switching parties or becoming obstructionists, they carved out a middle space, working with Republicans on fiscal issues while remaining Democrats on others.

What made it work: shared identity beyond party… willingness to accept criticism from their own side… focus on outcomes over ideology.

Personal Friendships Across the Aisle

Some of the most effective cross-partisan work has happened because of personal relationships that transcended ideology:

• Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were ideological opposites on the Supreme Court, and close personal friends. They traveled together, dined together, and celebrated New Year's Eve together. Their friendship didn't require agreement. It required respect.
• John McCain and Joe Biden served together for decades and maintained genuine friendship despite significant policy disagreements. Biden delivered the eulogy at McCain's funeral.
• Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan were fierce political opponents in public and friendly poker buddies in private. O'Neill famously said they were friends "after 6 PM."

What made these work: compartmentalization… genuine affection… and enough shared time to see each other as complex humans, not cardboard cutouts.

Core Quotes for the Journey

"To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment." — George Orwell

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." — F. Scott Fitzgerald

"A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open." — Frank Zappa

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." — Martin Luther King Jr.

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." — John Stuart Mill

"The highest result of education is tolerance." — Helen Keller

The Work Ahead

None of this is easy.

Staying calm when someone defends the indefensible is hard. Believing systems can change is hard. Maintaining relationships with people who hold views you find repugnant is hard. Keeping your own thinking sharp when everything around you rewards sloppiness… is hard.

But it's not impossible. History proves it. The examples above prove it.

Critical thinking didn't become betrayal because thinking is wrong. It became betrayal because we've built systems, social, economic, technological... that reward tribal loyalty over truth-seeking.

We can build different systems. We can model different behavior. We can refuse to let the loudest voices be the only voices.

And we can start now. Today. In our families, our communities, our own minds.

That's the work. That's always been the work.

And it's work that has to be chosen, every day, by people who would rather be whole than captured.

Continue the Journey

This article is part of a series exploring how ancient Hermetic wisdom applies to our modern polarized world:

• How Did Critical Thinking Become Betrayal? — The foundational exploration of why thinking feels like treason
• The Divided States of America: Finding Balance in a Polarized World — A deeper dive into Polarity, Rhythm, and Vibration as they apply to political division

Have a question for a future Q&A? Drop me a line at alex@hermeticpath.com.

Blog Home