Responding to a physical challenge brings in emotions and conditioned reactions. Challenging another person's worldview or absolutes may seem to them a lot like challenging their person. I suspect everyone can be flipped, by pulling on their known trigger points. When something does not immediately affect me, I try first to interest myself in devining where the other person is coming from.
Non-trivial "facts" are funny things. I don't try to argue or defend non-trivial, absolute facts about substance-based things, because I doubt such absolutes abide. I suspect that what non-trivial absolutes there are do not abide purely as Substance, but only in trivalent relationships with Information and Consciousness, perhaps largely dependent on point of view, context, and purpose. So, I try to back up and consider what is the other person's point of view, context, and purpose.
Once I have a better feel for that, I may sense more reason in what they are saying (even if I remain skeptical that what they are saying is as substantively absolute as they might profess). Problem is: In an age of slogan campaigns, emotional selling points, and fleeting opportunities, one often needs to strike a dramatic pose and save nuance for discussion with smarter, more relaxed, more self assured, and less threatened groups. Most folks seem to want to know only whether you are then and there with them or against them.
******
How are substantive relations apprehended to relate to other relations in order to effect perceptions of change within a system whose holistic potential does not change?
@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.
Non-trivial "facts" are funny things. I don't try to argue or defend non-trivial, absolute facts about substance-based things, because I doubt such absolutes abide. I suspect that what non-trivial absolutes there are do not abide purely as Substance, but only in trivalent relationships with Information and Consciousness, perhaps largely dependent on point of view, context, and purpose. So, I try to back up and consider what is the other person's point of view, context, and purpose.
Once I have a better feel for that, I may sense more reason in what they are saying (even if I remain skeptical that what they are saying is as substantively absolute as they might profess). Problem is: In an age of slogan campaigns, emotional selling points, and fleeting opportunities, one often needs to strike a dramatic pose and save nuance for discussion with smarter, more relaxed, more self assured, and less threatened groups. Most folks seem to want to know only whether you are then and there with them or against them.
******
How are substantive relations apprehended to relate to other relations in order to effect perceptions of change within a system whose holistic potential does not change?
@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.
1 comment:
In the 1830's, Alexis de Tocqueville gave us a pretty good idea of the ingredients needed to sustain democratic values. Afghanistan has none of those. To try to turn nations that have no ingredients for democracy into democracies is to warp our own ingredients to turn us away from democracy. Quite strange alchemy! We are undermining ourselves. Morevover, in trying to use international law, with American volunteers as a worldwide police force operating at the behest of Bilderbergers in order to bring all nations towards a lowest common denominator, we are converting Americans into interchangeable bits of raw material. Do we intentionally want to make our labor just as cheap and mis-informed as the rest of the world. Who benefits?
Post a Comment