Vaccine Mandates have been very much on my mind lately. This is not surprising as the topic is headline news during the coronavirus pandemic. It is an important matter which affects many people in many countries.
For me it is also a deeply personal matter. My wife’s nephew, Conrad Goodsir, who I have known since his birth, has become a freedom fighter opposed to government actions in Alberta, Canada. I am concerned because he is on a path that could become dangerous. I am concerned because he is being influenced by what I believe to be conspiracy theories, falsehoods and misinformation. He wrote a manifesto, BRAVE: THE LOGICAL CHOICE and I wrote a commentary on it which I published on October 13, 2021.
In July 2021 I joined Emergent Commons (EC). From the start I felt comfortable in this budding community and, all things considered, I am having a wonderful experience. I quickly became an active participant and I am making meaningful connections with interesting people.
On November 11th I attended a Steelmanning Vaccine Mandates event at EC. The purpose of this event was not to debate but “to fully hear each other and get answers to any questions we have about the others' perspective.” The two primary participants had agreed to bring their different perspectives to the question, "How do you feel about governments mandating vaccines for Covid 19?" The event attracted 29 EC members which is, I think, considerably more than any other EC event.
There is an important backstory to the event itself. On October 19th Peter Limberg, the steward of The Stoa, published Breaking the Polarity Spell of the Covidiots and Covidians. Limberg is well known and highly respected by many EC members. His article was immediately shared for discussion in the EC community. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand this essay.
EC is a private group but the event was recorded and agreement was reached to put the video in the public domain - Two people on opposite sides of Vaccine Mandates Actually Listen to Each Other. At the event I was impressed by the effort made by Bryan Winchell and Teri Murphy, and by the facilitator, James Baker, who we learned had also provided behind the scenes coaching. Recently I watched the video with considerable focus. I was again impressed, perhaps even more so than during the live event, particularly with James Baker. I would not have been brave enough to try something like this live in real time and I probably would have been impaired by too much anxiety. However, I do make an appearance in the video at the 1:20:04 mark.
Generally, my thinking aligns more closely with Teri Murphy than Bryan Winchell. I probably agreed with 95% of what she said. However, significantly, I probably also agreed with 90% of what Bryan Winchell said. I think he has many valid concerns that I share. I don’t think I strongly disagreed with Teri on any point. But on a couple of points I strongly disagreed with Bryan, as I will explain later.
For the record, to be clear, I think Bryan Winchell is reasonable, rational and authentic, a man of high integrity. I think I see considerable differences between his thinking and that of Conrad Goodsir, who in my view has been captured by conspiracy theories. I am pleased that Bryan has engaged in discussions with me and I am disappointed that Conrad will not.
After the EC event, both Bryan and Teri posted reports - "STEELMANNING VACCINE MANDATES" Event: What Comes Next? by Bryan Winchell and Report from Steelmanning Covid Event by Teri Murphy. In preparation for this essay I have reread these reports and the comments on them made by EC members.
Next, Teri posted Morning After Reflections on our Covid Non Debate which I also reread. At the moment there are 123 comments made by EC members and I read and reflected on all of them, especially Bryan’s, a big task. This discussion is not in the public domain so I will only capture my own comments here, with some spelling errors corrected and the full context missing, only one side of a multi-sided conversation. Generally, the tone of these discussions were not in the same spirit as the anti-debate event, some comments were argumentative and some were confrontational.
Teri Murphy. Thank you for this post. I would first like to point to a strong common interest which I observed in both you and Bryan Winchell. You both long for a much better world, believe such a world is possible and want to play a role in getting there. And you are both EC members, as we all are. Beyond that I observed deep differences that probably go to your core beings. I too reacted to Brian stating his intention to be more expressive of his views. Teri, I think your view probably reflects the dominant culture at EC while Bryan has a valid but minority point of view. He will probably get more push back while you will probably get more support. This could become intense and divisive. But we must resist the possibility of overpowering minority views. We must transcend any movement towards a culture war between liberals and conservatives. Personally, I am very much a liberal but I have had deep discussions with conservatives, and I am not saying that Bryan is one. I do not know him very well at this time. I am saying that deep discussions between liberals and conservatives are extremely difficult but can lead to deep mutual respect. Looking for the truth will not get us where we need to go. There is no liberal truth. There is no conservative truth. Truth is everywhere and truth is nowhere.
Teri and Bryan, you and me, all of us, are complex systems trying to understand a hyperobject, the pandemic.
At the moment I have nothing to add. However, I continue to follow this discussion with considerable interest. I am busy reading and thinking and will probably have lots to say in due course.
Bryan Winchell. I appreciate your presence here at EC. You are someone I would like to get to know better, if only I had the time. You and I follow two writers at Medium that probably most members here are unaware of but gives us a point of connection. I think most of us here are trying to understand the pandemic and the Big Picture as best we can. Personally, I do not think you, me, Teri or James Corbett understands the pandemic very well. It can be understood as a hyperobject that is beyond the understanding of any one person. Absorbing pandemic information is much like trying to drink out of a fire hose. However, I will have a look at James Corbett if you agree to have a look at Tomas Pueyo.
At this point, Bryan shared a link to The Corbett Report and I shared a link to Tomas Pueyo.
Bryan Winchell.Thank you for this lengthy response. Let’s start with where we agree. You, me and probably everyone at EC long for a better world, believe such a world is possible and want to play a role in getting there.
I agree that we need more than intellect and there is much that I too cannot wrap my head around. I too listen to my body, value my intuition and draw on my life experience, all seventy years of it. I take care of my health and I am grateful that I am rarely sick.
And, like you, I see many problems with health care systems around the world and I agree that alternative medicine is greatly undervalued. I have been aware of, and respected, the work of Andrew Weil for more years than I can remember. But I am also very grateful for mainstream western medicine which was there for me when I needed hernia surgery a few years ago. And while I am generally distrustful of pharmaceutical companies, I am also very grateful for the prescription drugs that I have taken regularly for over twenty years.
And I share your concern with the short efficacy of vaccines. The general public is not yet aware of this development and the impact of this news will probably be devastating. Governments and media will probably underreport this story for months to come.
So far we are not that far apart.
However, I am not greatly concerned by governments attempting to control populations. I do not think that that is their motivation. What I see is mostly grossly incompetent polititions more interested in preserving the little power they think they have and doing the best they can, very poorly. But you may be right and I may be wrong. However, my life experience has taught me to be very careful about asserting what the true motivation of any other human being really is. I DO NOT KNOW what is in the mind of any other human being.
I believe the Game B movement is on the right track with emphasizing personal sovereignty. My focus is on my own mind, keeping it out of the reach of government control. I draw inspiration from Victor Frankl who was free while in Auschwitz. He knew that the Nazis could not take control of his mind even though they totally controlled him in every other respect. This, I believe, is the best path forward.
I do not yet know anything about what James Corbett has to say. But I start from a position of great skepticism. I very much doubt that he, or anyone, including Tomas Pueyo, has correctly connected the dots. There are too many dots. It's too complex. That is what I love about the Game B movement. No one has a solution to the metacrisis but we are doing our best to find a way.
I recognize that we are in a war but, unlike you, I am not going to fight. I am not saying that what you are doing is wrong, but it is not for me. It may be better to die fighting than live in the world that is coming at us. However, I believe we are still in a liminal time. Perhaps the future is breakdown and dystopia. Perhaps the future is breakthrough and a new and better world. I DO NOT KNOW. But I do not think that I am living with a greater degree of denial than you are.
And finally, I am not through with Sensemaking. You say you do not need more time to understand. I do. And if I live to be a hundred, I doubt that I will fully understand. My aim is to gain an understanding that is good enough to personally thrive as long as possible, so far so good.
I intend to have a look at James Corbett and I hope you look at Tomas Pueyo. But there are hundreds more we should look at. What we do not know will always be much more than what we do know. We make our decisions as best we can with what we individually know. My decision will probably be to get vaccinated every six months for the rest of my life, if that is possible. I live in Mexico and if you think the US government is problematic...
I hope you and I can continue this conversation from time to time for years to come.
At the moment I have nothing to add. However, I continue to follow this discussion with considerable interest. I am busy reading and thinking and will probably have lots to say in due course.
Assume that the Emergent Commons is an intentional community, a real one with all 350 members living in a beautiful co-housing project. The members have a very civil anti-debate considering the matter of a vaccine mandate. Much discussion does not produce a consensus. The majority of members favour a mandate but there is a significant minority of valued members who are strongly opposed. The community decides to require the vaccination of all members and all those who serve the community in some way. What happens next?
Thanks for your comments, Bryan. Assume a group of social anarchists form an intentional community and live in a co-housing project. Would such a community thrive? How would significant disagreements be resolved?
There is a vast continuum between no faith in government and total faith in government. Sometimes I support government actions and sometimes I don't. Mostly I look for other options when confronted by either this or that choices.
Provocative questions, Ed. However, I am neither for nor against government mandates. And my position changes as circumstances change. This is all just very interesting dialogue. I live in Mexico and there are no mandates here so I need make no personal decisions. However, if the Mexican government decides to mandate vaccination, it would be foolish to fight. This is not a hill I would die on.
Bryan Winchell. No. I do not need to be OK or not OK with government mandates. I do not need to have answers to Ed's questions. That is not, in my opinion, the best game to play. My opinions have little value. And if I did have an opinion on mandates, I would try to hold it very lightly. I need to make enough sense of everything to enable making decisions in my daily life. If the Government of Mexico mandates vaccinations, I will comply. However, I hope that they do not go down that road. In Alberta, my former home, my wife's nephew has become a Freedom Fighter. He is ignoring me, very sad. I believe polarization is a big problem, perhaps as important as what The Machine is doing. Most efforts to force choosing sides are red flags for me.
Bryan Winchell. It seems to me that you are doing more than disagreeing with me. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you believe your approach is the right one and mine is wrong. It is fine that you disagree, but I think opposing governments, especially here in Mexico, would be foolish. I would not want to end up in a Mexican jail. In Mexico, prisoners are not given toilet paper so you better have friends who visit often. And in Mexico some people who oppose the government disappear. The Mexican government is not good government to say the least. To oppose them on anything has risk. As an ex-pat my risks are even greater than those of Mexican citizens. I would not oppose the Mexican government on anything significant, including vaccine mandates. Do you still disagree with me?
I remain unconvinced, Bryan. I think I understand your position and I accept it as reasonable and rational. I share many of your concerns. I do not mind being labeled as wishy washy by you as I reject that label. I believe it takes strength to not be caught up in the culture war. I do not believe in fighting battles where the probability of a win is very low. In my view, we cannot fight The Machine and win, but we can, perhaps, hopefully, outsmart them.
My no is not a silent yes but this you refuse to accept. Fine. No problem. My position remains unchanged.
During the discussion, a link was posted to an article I read, Elements of Refusal by Charles Eisenstein, who I highly respect. I think this is an excellent article with many good points, well worth reading and thinking about. However, I was not convinced by it.
At this point, I want to capture some of my thoughts now as I write this essay. I found Teri’s comments quite easy to understand, probably because I am mostly in alignment with her thinking. But I put a lot of mental effort into understanding Bryan. At this point, I am probably still at about 95% agreement with Teri. However, my agreement with Bryan has probably shifted from about 90% to about 80%. I learned more from Bryan than Teri because he brought forward perspectives that I was less familiar with.
I am also feeling another shift. My respect for Bryan has risen. It’s not that I ever disrespected him; it’s just that I did not know him very well. He strikes me as a man of high integrity and that is a character trait I greatly value. But I find it easier to respect him than be in full agreement with him.
I now want to give my response to the question "How do you feel about governments mandating vaccines for Covid 19?" I probably did not think very much about this question before it arose at EC. I did not react to the question with strong feelings when I first saw it. Had I immediately documented an answer, I think I would have said, “I am not opposed to governments mandating vaccines for Covid-19.” I do not think I would have answered, “I am in support of vaccine mandates.” This may seem like a subtle distinction but it feels significant to me. I cannot imagine myself answering, “I am in strong support of vaccine mandates.”
At this point I also want to revisit an early statement I made: “Teri, I think your view probably reflects the dominant culture at EC while Bryan has a valid but minority point of view. He will probably get more push back while you will probably get more support.” I now think that views of EC members may be more evenly balanced on the question than I had imagined.
The drama continued. A couple of weeks ago Bryan posted a poll at EC - Have you been vaccinated for Covid-19? Yes or No. I quickly posted a comment: "I like your intentions but yes / no answers eliminate all nuances. Also, I personally prefer this not be anonymous. The frame I put around this is that we are all complex systems that cannot be reduced to this level of simplicity." Bryan quickly replied indicating my response was inappropriate. I replied, “Sorry, Bryan. I was being too reactive. Yes, two doses of Sinovac in March and May.” This question is a question of simple facts and the idea of nuances does not apply. And, as a matter of fact, I am currently registered to receive a third dose.
Bryan posted a second question: The second question is: Are you in favor of government mandates for Covid-19 vaccines? (Yes / No are the two answers).
I did not respond to the second question but I will do so here. The second question is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. In this case, nuances are significant but are eliminated when given a binary choice. Responding with either a yes or a no does not capture the thoughts I want to express. Rather than answering the question, this is a question that I prefer not to focus on.
As I write, there are 77 comments on Bryan’s posted poll. Again, I read and reflected on all of them. And again, I will only record my own comments in this essay.
I would also like to voice my support for Bryan and his participation at EC however he sees fit. All members here are equal. Everyone has equal right to determine what we do here. If we go down a road of shutting down anyone who makes us uncomfortable, EC will be the poorer for it. This is not easy which is what makes it worthwhile. But in my view, Bryan has not come close to violating any community guidelines. I hope to continue my dialogue with Byran in the EC space for a long time. Everyone here has the right to block another member if they do not like their posts.
I am only speaking about posts made by Bryan. Does anyone believe Bryan has posted anything in violation of community guidelines?
Your experience of EC is very different than mine. There are many members, including you, that I would like to get to know better, if only I had more time. Almost all of my experiences in this community have tasted very sweet.
I am working on a response but it will be a while.
I am still working on a comprehensive response but I am slow. There is a lot to process. Also, there are many other demands on my time. And I am trying to follow omicron developments. And, locally, I may soon need to stand in line for a few hours to get my booster.
Teri Murphy published her reflections on Medium: Can We Still be Friends after Discussing Vaccine Mandates?
We didn’t reach synthesis… If opposition to mandates makes them unworkable, I wondered, are we doomed to face this pandemic — and the next bigger one — without benefit of modern science or coordinated response? …What if we are doomed to perspectives so divergent that we can no longer take action together on a big scale?
Yes, Teri, I think this is the sad truth.
At this point I want to go back to Breaking the Polarity Spell of the Covidiots and Covidians by Peter Limberg. This was the article that initially motivated Teri and, I believe, revealed her intentions. I hope that this article reflects the intentions of the majority of EC members, but I am not confident that this is true.
Here are some of my favorite quotes from Peter’s article:
A COVID culture war is taking place, with two warring narratives - the COVID thesis and COVID antithesis.
Luckily for my sanity, most of my first-principled thinking friends do not fall cleanly on either the thesis or antithesis side, and while they may temperamentally lean toward one side, they are oriented towards discovering what I call a COVID synthesis position, a position where we are collectively concerned about effectively addressing this virus, while safeguarding our freedoms.
I do think a COVID synthesis is needed. It seems obvious to me for all of us to be mutually concerned with eliminating or at least reducing the harm of COVID-19, while ensuring we expand, not reduce, our sense of freedom, along with our personal sovereignty.
Their memetic borders obviously influence how they understand what is happening, but their sense of the spirit is conveying the same thing: consciousness is under threat like it has never been before in our lifetime. I feel this as well.
If one knows how to befriend fear, not go to war with it, the option to be courageous presents itself, affording other possibility tunnels to open up. And there are many possible tunnels in front of us, some are much more beautiful than others. I can feel them now. What one should I choose? What one should we choose?
There are other articles that I would like to reference.
The Vaccine Moment, part one by Paul Kingsnorth
The Vaccine Moment, part two by Paul Kingsnorth
The Vaccine Moment, part three by Paul Kingsnorth
Peter Limberg inspired the Murphy/Winchell anti-debate and I would like to give him the last word. Yesterday he published Three Types of Debates We Need Now: Sports, Sensemaking, and Connective which nicely closes this essay. Going forward, I am more interested in discussing Limberg's articles than discussing vaccine mandates.
Debates are broken, so yeah, let us fix them.
I want to add the following links to useful information from Tomas Pueyo.
What Most People Still Get Wrong About COVID Management
A Review of My COVID Predictions
And a link to the article he published in 2020 https://tomaspueyo.medium.com/