I ripped this off from my friend Andger. This little cartoon is an apt metaphor for this site and the Democrat Party. Especially the ending.

I am laughing my ass off.

That's a great film, thanks, Chris, but I think the analogy works better at a larger scale. I see the forum more as a bazaar for ideas and a place for meeting people rather than a ship, but Earth is a ship.

Who do you see as the captain - the George Bush admministration or a more global group?

How do you think the cabin boy could have got his message across better?

How clumsy of me. I meant to indict you, along with Hartmann’s Democratic handlers. Go play someone else. I am sure that when the corrupted assholes take over, Hartmann and you will be the head of the trumpet section.

Chris,

Either you're here or you're gone.

I'm kind of confused, about which one it is.

Still, hello.

Watched part of the video. My son once had a play ship just like the one used in it. Now, he's old enough to think me a fool, unless he's remembering why he actually likes me. lol.

The trouble with all you disingenuous white folks is that you are all confused about your own snobbishness as you trip over each other to claim membership in the pack. Unlike Hartmann and his band of giddy disciples, no one owns me.

Happy Saturday to you, Chris.

... Hehehe, just cruisin' down some of the old back alleyways, as I came across this vitriolic little gem. It brought back a flood of memories of my very own first encounter with Chris' caustic -yet highly articulate- pen, even before I had become a fully registered member...

... I myself -like most other first time posters- spent more than a few hours 'lurking,' as it has come to be known, before eventually building up enough courage and chutzpah to brave the challenge of posting, and daring to go toe to toe with such a variety of highly intelligent, and very sharp minds...

... What you dread beyond any possible outcome, is to be greeted with your very first post with the flaming sarcasm of one not only as talented in the craft (of sarcasm :-) as is/was our own Mr. Chris de Getman, but one whose posts you have already come to admire in the short time you have already come to know these boards...

... That's how I was introduced to Thom's website, and I must say it was quite a shocking introduction simply because Chris' perspective was one that I had initially found so compelling...

... Part of me wanted to quietly slink away, and another part of me just simply wanted to dismiss him -and the ship he rode in on- outright, but another part of me still liked what it was that that he had to say, despite the poorly developed social skills he seemed to employ in saying it...
... One could imagine the phrase 'a love/hate relationship'...

... Not long ago, I had the opportunity to transfer to a new jobsite, and began to hear stories almost immediately about a soon to be coworker, who was very well known as a flaming die hard democrat, and one that I was surely going to get along swimingly with, due to ,my own well known political proclivities. I was very much looking forward to the long hours of discussion that we were certainly destined to share, but found myself bitterly disappointed with the venom and hatred towards all things republican and all things conservative, that spewed forth from the mouth of this bitter, angry man...
... The very few conversation that we did have, (before I was given the opportunity to transfer yet again ) were of me trying to suggest to him that his perspective was no more valid than his supposed protagonists simply because it was primarily based upon -and filled with- so much loath and hatred...

... It mattered little -I tried to share- what wisdom came out of that 'beautiful mind' of his, if it was all being processed through a most atrophied heart, indeed... I must say though, that I did tire of this particular individual rather quickly, and we soon became nothing more than two coworkers passing in the hallway...

... I cannot say that I have quite given up on Chris though, and can only guess that I am still intrigued by his own beautiful mind 'even more' than I am taken aback by his own hardened heart...

... Now then, being a longtime proponent of a certain healthy merging of a certain healthy 'head,' with a certain healthy 'heart' -I do however, recognize a certain existential 'imbalance' when I see one...

... And a beautiful mind cannot long stand alone without the equally beautiful heart to match... 'Tis the nature of the spiritual quest, or journey...

... Merry Christmas to all!...

... And 'here's to' the softening of hardened hearts the world over, for 2007, and beyond...

Merry Christmas Lawrence.

Lawerence,

Thanks for the reminder, and being a mirror. You are right, of course.

... Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too Saw... er, Don... and to your family as well!...

... and thank you Chris, for taking my little Christman carol in the spirit that it was intended... not too hard... but not too soft either...

... Hey, that reminds me of another universal cultural metaphor, reminding us all of a more, enlivening 'middle way'...

... Hehehe... nevermind...

Merry Christmas, Lawrence.

I remember meeting Chris, too, btw, er engaging with him. It was on the subject of scientology.

Greetings, Lawrence

I wish for you and yours a Happy Solstice.

I hope that in this time you've been away from the drama of this Board you are processing more art. Among any efforts in that endeavor, conscious or otherwise, I hope that the "book" on the binary oppositions of left and right continues to evolve -- at least in your mind, if not in your own words somewhere.


Oh, and I saw the '60s vintage movie, Ship of Fools a couple of days ago. A very young George Segal, some other fine acting personnas from that period, Simone Signoret was rich and compelling in her role as the middle aged Contessa headed for imprisonment in pre WWII Germany as Hitler takes power, having one last affair with the ship's German physician, a man with a real and metaphorically damaged heart. Well, the ship makes it to Germany, and we all know what happened after that. And the world to be united under Hitler has become a global society after all. Hmmm, as Kate might say.

... Merry Christmas to you too Kate!...

... Scientology heh? Hmmm, I probably learned more about scientology from my short time on these boards than I ever learned in all the years prior. At the very least, the interest was generated, and the links were often provided -and sometimes followed- as my own curiosity beckoned... I don't recall Chris' take on the subject though, but if he was leading the discussion, I'm sure that it wasn't dull, and I'm also sure that it was uniquely informative... (hehehe, and probably a little caustic as well :-) I would also venture to guess that you yourself played at least a small part as a moderating influence in any such exchange...

... Ren-naisance Man, and fellow 'Norwesterner! Greetings and good cheer yourself!...

... Thank you for your salutations, and/or benedictions, and 'yes' I do continue to 'process' all the contemporary machinations that seem to play themselves out for all the world to see, feel, and experience...

... As for the 'drama' -it is no more dramatic here, than the drama that gets played out in (most of) our own respective families, during these hectic holiday times, which we all have come to know as the year-end Solstice...
... Although the folks on these boards can be a bit trying at times, they are still far more stimulating in conversation, and far more deeply engaged -in both real and imagined problems- than my own immediate biological lineage affords me -at 'any' time of the year...

... I may -like many others in this cyber community- go away from time to time, but it's always good to be welcomed back to the analogous fold during these holiday celebrations, with a hearty salute, a virtual mug of warm cider, and the promise of good company, and good conversation, that is at times so very hard to come by in our brick and mortar world, for all but a fortunate few...

quote:

Ren:
Hmmm, as Kate might say.

... Yes indeed, there are more than enough 'Hmmms' to go around in this perplexing and parodoxical world of ours... And maybe it is my own labeling of these various anomalies as 'parodox' that 'parodoxically' keeps me from ever getting 'too' angry over these issues in the first place, where they might stand a chance of becoming 'transformed,' if only enough energy -anger or otherwise- can be directed accordingly... Parodoxical, no?...

... Maybe that's why I'm so enamored with Chris in the first place -and I've even suggested it to himself on more than one occasion previously. There is a large part of me that wonders almost daily if i just may not be angry enough, and therefore cannot dismiss Chris' caustic style outright, because it may just be the one thing missing from my own thrust into the cultural conflict that a 'book by Lawrence' would demand...

... Chris also seems to be engaging in a certain practice that the 'Integral Philosopher' Ken Wilber has been chided (by some) for engaging in -and even popularizing himself- which is the the severe and repeated chastizment of the liberal, progressive, mean green meme, democratic, baby-boomers...

... Ken Wilber's obsevations seem to have come to the conclusion that the only way forward, to the next level of human evolution, is through the path of the most highly evolved of the planets citizens -which is that of -to greatly simplify things- the 'liberal'...

... Ken Wilber believes that our cultural metaphor has come to a certain 'bottleneck' and will not 'break through' unless and until those damn liberals own up to their own cultural superiority to the masses around them, and claim their birthright which is to guide the rest of us dumbasses into the glorious and magnificent future (hehehe, 'look' I can be sarcastic too )... Ken also suggests that the reason this bottleneck continues is due to the liberals almost innate revulsion to all things 'hierarchical'. And if you have a certain distaste for all things hierarchical, Then it stands to reason that placing onesself at the very top of any hierarchy would be quite distasteful indeed!...

... Naturally, one or two contrarians have wondered on more than one or two occasion if humiliating our planetary saviors is not the best method to go about encouraging them to take up this so called mantle...

... Is this a fairly close approximation to what Ken Wilber is saying? If it is, it is only a very small portion of all that he writes and speaks of. But a very significant portion none the less. Is our friend Chris engaged in a similar exercise as Ken Wilber, and if so, am I gently disagreeing with Chris because I am not too sure about this particular methodology of Ken Wilbers? I don't know, but it sure promises to be an interesting time while I'm home here for the holidays!...

Hey Lawrence,

One theory has it that we are of multi faceted temperaments by virtue of nature's challenge that organisms find a survival of the fit. That is, those who survive manage to find a way to fit, fit the complexity of the biosphere we never really understand in any way that makes us the caretakers. For one thing, it's always changing as a factor of an ongoing systemic process, so theoretically speaking, that presents us with quite a challenge. You add to that these fixated ideas our obsessive compulsives latch onto, like bringing democracy to the Middle East, and the like, and it's very likely that we need a mix of mind types to wrench our groups out of deadly behavior fixations.

So, since humans appear to be natural group makers, very likely as a survival strategy, we need to perhaps celebrate our internal group diverstity, for that may be one of the most important keys to our adaptive ability to find a fit. Of course, it may not be, I'm all for recognizing the limits to what I can know.

I'm not sure about this idea that one group is destined to lead us anywhere. I am sure I don't like the idea. But then, that's my temperament speaking, another degree of contrarian in the gene pool, I suppose. After all, I've suspected for some time I was born riding my horse backwards.

So, you've not been home much lately? Are you suggesting you look to the Boards for some, shall we say, entertainment over the holidays? I'll keep an eye out for your posts, if so. I've not been finding much to engage here in cyberspace recently. But I can take a break from my other engagements if something interesting comes along. I'm at least that flexible.

quote:

Originally posted by Ren:
Hey Lawrence,

One theory has it that we are of multi faceted temperaments by virtue of nature's challenge that organisms find a survival of the fit.

… By ‘virtue of natures challenge’ or natures binary gift of ‘push and pull?’…

quote:

That is, those who survive manage to find a way to fit,

… Yes, however to use Abraham Maslows early ‘Hierarchy of Being’ pyramid -at the very least- those folks who are perceiving reality from that very primal ‘survival’ mentality do indeed seem to make things more than a little annoying when they try to paint social constructs with such a broad brush stroke, that does not much seem to consider ‘multi-faceted temperments’ that is yours, mine, Chris’ and anyone else who finds themselves incapable of divining life through such one-dimensional lenses…

quote:

to fit the complexity of the biosphere we never really understand in any way that makes us the caretakers.

… Oh, I think we understand plenty. Certainly enough to know better than to piss in our own drinking water, defecate in our own living rooms, rape the very land we depend upon, and exploit our own friends, neighbors, and relatives, all in the guise of our ‘fitting to survive’… We know better, but it is still a very strong and powerful cultural narrative that we have to push very hard against in order to finally make any headway…

quote:

For one thing, it's always changing as a factor of an ongoing systemic process, so theoretically speaking, that presents us with quite a challenge.

… Hehehe, and the more things change –the more they remain the same…

quote:

You add to that these fixated ideas our obsessive compulsives latch onto, like bringing democracy to the Middle East, and the like,

… and us bleeding hearts insisting that we all just get along…

quote:

and it's very likely that we need a mix of mind types to wrench our groups out of deadly behavior fixations.

… Sure… And whether we use the simplified model of the well known Enneagram with its own unique mix of mind types, starting with the ‘The Reformer, The Helper, The Achiever, The Individualist, The Investigator, The Loyalist, The Enthusiast, The Challenger, and finally The Peacemaker’ –which amongst this fine mix of minds would tout anger and venom as their preferred method as a teaching tool?… That’s all I’m pondering… That, and the still perplexing paradox that compels me to consider if my own ‘judging of judgment’ is no less a violation of the continuing ‘separation of us and them?’… I would not wish to deny Chris –or the millions like us- our unique personalities, and the many gifts that we bring to life for all to experience. I just question -hopefully, with at least a small sense of detachment- whether or not there is a real need to belittle your fellow man (or woman) in this experiential process we call life…

quote:

So, since humans appear to be natural group makers, very likely as a survival strategy, we need to perhaps celebrate our internal group diverstity,

… hehehe, no need to spell this out to a green meme…

quote:

for that may be one of the most important keys to our adaptive ability to find a fit.

… I couldn’t agree more… However, there are many times in the course of my own personal interactions with others, that some of the first things that ‘pop’ into my head are really rather quite cheesy, tacky, stupid, or just plain malicious. If it were not for my own personal inclination to first ‘edit’ these seemingly spontaneous ‘free associations’ of the very first thoughts that popped into my own creative head, well, not only would many people I encountered be left in anger, hurt and confusion, but I would also be taken far less seriously than I would ever hope to be, if a certain ‘exchange of ideas’ just happened to be one of the many goals I would hope to aspire to…

quote:

Of course, it may not be, I'm all for recognizing the limits to what I can know.

… One of the few ‘limits’ that seems to crop up in our collective exchanges over and over again, is the seeming limitation we place upon ourselves and our fellow inhabitants, with our obvious inability –or unwillingness- to see our fellow creatures as ‘one another’ or ‘a part,’ rather than the way we currently see, or perceive, as ‘other’ and ‘apart’… Maybe this is where that ‘fake it ‘til you make it’ comes into play –at least with my own beliefs or perceptions. It seems to me that if we just simply started to avoid all those really bad habits of ours that continues to perpetuate such divisions –like anger and hatred, for example- it might not solve all of lives current problems and difficulties, but it sure seems like it would go a hell of a long way towards ‘easing the transition’ when we finally do start to gingerly move forward in that eventual, and inevitable direction…

quote:

I'm not sure about this idea that one group is destined to lead us anywhere. I am sure I don't like the idea. But then, that's my temperament speaking, another degree of contrarian in the gene pool, I suppose.

… Well, that’s that damn hierarchy thing now isn’t it?…

quote:

After all, I've suspected for some time I was born riding my horse backwards

… That definitely seems like a sure fired way of ‘swimming against the stream, to get to the Source!’…

quote:

So, you've not been home much lately? Are you suggesting you look to the Boards for some, shall we say, entertainment over the holidays?

… Entertainment?… No, it’s more than entertainment… More like ‘inspiration’… Unlike many of the fine minds around here, I am not one who believes that the world would be a rather dull place without the contrarian voices of the conservative mainstream to ‘balance’ our experiential equation we call life… If the conservative mindset could only recognize my own creative perspective as an equally valid and important ‘half,’ or portion of their own equally valid perceptions, than it would be quite difficult indeed to rally against such a magnificent polarity… However, as you well know, the current status quo –which is best personified by the conservative, conventional, subject/object duality- is not about polarities at all, but is much more about opposites… And as the current crop of conservative contrarians –who came to power in ’94- has shown us, there is ‘nothing’ of the ‘loyal opposition’ that conservative ideologues find ‘equal,’ or worthy of compromising to, with regards to their own myopic, one-dimensional version of reality… Likewise, how can I embrace a certain ‘half’ of a worldview that refuses itself, to embrace the worldview of –metaphorically speaking- the ‘other’ half of the planets integrity?…

… I am all for unifying polarities. But there can be no unifying when one aspect of the pole, only believes in the annihilation of the other… Therefore, I myself do not find much comfort, equanimity, or even ‘entertainment’ in this forum which is Thom’s, when seemingly ‘half’ of the posters are spewing conservative, conventional rants, that give off the illusion that these derisive diatribes are the all important Yin, and the missing link, of an all important Yang, that only needs its ‘other half’ to make it complete… It is not too difficult to see how this could easily be confused, as some sort of pseudo-redress of a certain real imbalance. However, it is also not too difficult to see it for what it truly is, as well…

… One of the reasons I spend less time @ Thom’s is that I find that I have grown tired of all the conventional wisdom that this place seems to attract. I see conventional wisdom every single day in the mainstream media, and don’t need to go elsewhere to seek out even more. I have a pretty good idea of just what all the conservative mantras are, and find no solace or wisdom, and certainly no hope for the future in their subject/object duality. I actually ‘do’ seek out various voices and perspectives that really do seem to be more closely matched with my own, and find as rich a variety in this realm as any other. We may have similar beliefs and perceptions, but with each and every human being a wholly unique mass of ideas all unto themselves –no two ‘can’ ever be the same- even if we tried… Anyway, that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it!… It is always good to hear from you, btw! (and many of these other fascinating 'unconventional' minds as well)…

quote:

I'll keep an eye out for your posts, if so. I've not been finding much to engage here in cyberspace recently.

… See, that’s what I’m talkin’ about!…

quote:

But I can take a break from my other engagements if something interesting comes along. I'm at least that flexible.

… Well, ‘interesting’ is a relative term…

Lawrence,

You've raised some issues that invoke a complex set of images for me, they are all intertwined in a way that does not lend itself to a linear unraveling, but I'll do my best, since that's all I have to work with here in this word venue.

Howard and I just had an extensive discussion about the limits to our ability to "know" (and I can only defer any questions about what "know" means to several thousand years worth of philosophical discussion with recorded roots back to Buddha and the Greeks, among others). Of course, to be clear, that was my notion of what we were discussing, I'll let Howard explain his, in his own way, if ever he should be asked about it. The discussion began here where I intruded in a discussion he was having with Don (Sawdust).

Anyway, that's a part of this "whole" that is in my mind after reading through your comments, and I see no point in reiterating it here. So if you are interested you can review some of my comments there. I was investigating what Howard might mean by his often stated challenge to pay attention to "what is" in life, and especially in dialog. One of the key phrases is Alfred Korzbski's famous principle: "The map is not the territory." We developed in that conversation some agreed upon "maps" of what maps are. Essentially all this that we share with one another with language is mapping. All the concepts, all the ideas, everything is a reinterpretation of something more basic, some sense of what lies beyond the "Palm at the end of the mind" as Wallace Stevens put it in his poem Of Mere Being, and what we translate that into through our own sensory perceptions, which are themselves not the territory external to us but only a sensory impression which we must translate in some way.

Let me clarify what I meant in reference to nature's challenge. The "binary gift of 'push and pull?'..." is only one aspect of it, to me. And note that you set up a binary opposition that I did not intend, thus framing it as such for yourself. You may if you wish, but I'm not buying into it. I just recognize that it is a part of a dialogue possibility, such as the Socratic dialectic technique, or the black and white thinking that's passed off for politics on Hate Radio or some such.

Notice too that Maslov's hierarchical "pyramid" is a thought construct (a "map") of its own derived out of a cultural conditioning of thought, and that it may have a peculiar "male" context in Western thought to its conditioning for Maslov. As you said in your last statement about "interesting," Maslov's idealization of hierarchy itself is relative. That's where the notion of context comes into our historical analytical paradigm of the limits to "knowledge." Some of us have come face to face with the problem of notions of "absolute." And with this comes the recognition of the fallacies of binary oppositions as a feature of human thought, and how it leads to a debate of right/wrong and other issues that become problematic in a relativistic context.

After Maslov and his hierachy of needs comes a very enlightening period of feminist intrusion into the sacred male bastions of knowledge. Among those new "challengers" was Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice. She brought insights that broke down the rigidity of the need hierarchy -- and potentially all hierarchy of that nature. In the process she opens up the amazing plasticity and creative potential of the human mind to the analytical process. Once again, relativity becomes a challenging issue that the "traditional" forces find not just uncomfortable, but downright terrifying. Thus we have this now long and violating effort to put the Pandora of creativity that began to escape, back into the harsh and dogmatic return to the basic teachings of the constraining box of the three R's, all of which have to meet a National Standard to which all teachers must now conform.

Interestingly the challenge itself came as a kind of binary opposition -- Male/Female, but once it had made it's mark, and the facade of this difference began to get more attention, the "feminist" argument begins to melt away as these differences diverge into the variations of temperament that have no necessary bearing on sex differences, but rather on cognitive development differences that can occur no matter the sex of the individual.

Related to that is the ancient Enneagram concept, brought back to popularity by Gurdjieff with his Fourth Way teaching tradition. Just looking at the Enneagram, it's extremely difficult to set up a binary opposition view of society of a complex of individuals with the temperament features it represents:



By "simplified" version of the Enneagram, are you also referring to the psychology "parlor" version of Jungian typology where you have essentially sixteen personality types derived from a core of eight elements (I,E,N,S,F,T,P,J)?



Rather than focus on any one of them, and find the obvious rich potential for criticism in the details, I suggest just noticing that they each recognize something we seem to all agree upon, at least intuitively, and that's the rich diversity of possible personality types each person presents, and that we do recognize something along the line of "types" when we start to pay attention.

By Nature's gift, what I mean is to look at this mixture itself as one of the gifts, however one might want to argue that these differences of type emerge in the individual -- and there's the animated binary opposition of nature/nurture that raises it's black and white head here to further confuse, or make interesting (depending on your temperament proclivity, perhaps), the matter.

So, that's not so much an effort to explain, but to point to the problems of complexity, and to suggest a move towards a mental process that recognizes complexity, as well as our own urge to simplify complexity into something conceptual and manageably so. I think that process itself is important to realize about the "what is" that's going on in our discussions. First we see that we are understandably trying to make a mysterious set of sensory experiences comprehendable and manageable. In the process we undo the reality of our experience, reshape it perhaps, and make what we conclude it to be a questionable truth. And from there we go about blowing up the "evil" Middle East, because we are "good" and righteous, and so forth and so on.

The symmetry, or maybe uniformity, about kaleidoscopes, and personality profies, sort of bugs me.

When I select visuals for digital music, I usually select "random" visuals. Even then, there's a certain sameness about the pairing of two light leaders to create the images.

So, too, with the average kaleidoscope. Just now, I did find an image that suggests random placement of light particles, and I'm wondering if the randomness, itself, is an optical illusion.

image

This message has been edited. Last edited by: --Kate,

quote:

Originally posted by Ren:
Lawrence,

You've raised some issues that invoke a complex set of images for me, they are all intertwined in a way that does not lend itself to a linear unraveling, but I'll do my best, since that's all I have to work with here in this word venue.

Howard and I just had an extensive discussion about the limits to our ability to "know" (and I can only defer any questions about what "know" means to several thousand years worth of philosophical discussion with recorded roots back to Buddha and the Greeks, among others). Of course, to be clear, that was my notion of what we were discussing, I'll let Howard explain his, in his own way, if ever he should be asked about it. The discussion began here where I intruded in a discussion he was having with Don (Sawdust).

Anyway, that's a part of this "whole" that is in my mind after reading through your comments, and I see no point in reiterating it here.. So if you are interested you can review some of my comments there.

... Yes, after spending several days reviewing those dialogues, I can see where it would be rather cumbersome in reiterating those words yet again… I can sympathize in your efforts with Howard. I’ve had similar go-arounds myself on a few occasions with Howard as well…
… Just like I do with Chris, I recognize a kindred spirit with the thoughts and ideas that flow from Howards heart and mind (I’ll downplay the ‘heart and mind’ analogy so you will not feel as though I am trying to coerce you into a certain ‘duality’ that you are not inclined to ‘buy into’… ) However, just as it is –to me- ‘as obvious as the nose on our face’ from whence Howards ‘unbiased’ political, social, or objective proclivities tends to lean towards, it is equally just as obvious to those Howard would profess to educate as well –it seems to me… )
… When Howard says things like;

“that the way people 'think/interpret' is what is leading humans to destroy the ecosystem,” I know he’s referring to conservatives, and not a bunch of liberal environmentalists. Or, when he says things like;

“When you have a culture that evaluates everything in 'economic' terms,” I know he’s not talking about liberal democrats. Or, when he says things like;

“if some sort of crash occurs in the upcoming years with Global Warming, Peak Oil, or the Economy, one
thing should be clear. And that's that insufficient 'attention' was paid to reality,” that the ‘insufficient attention to reality’ that Howard is referring to, is a very obvious indictment of the conservative mindset. And when Howard makes comments like;

“the difficulty is getting people who are infatuated with the ping pong game to see the stupity of defending
a confused belief in the face of contrary evidence,” I know exactly who he is referring to –and so do the supposedly stupid people he is referring to. So, naturally, when I’ve seen Howard on more than a few occasions refer to this exercise of his in this manner;

“I've suggested several times that cooperative dialogue, which is the approach I always use, isn't about 'convincing' others of one's opinions,” –as ‘cooperative dialogue, well, it just makes me chuckle…

I am engaged in a dualistic ping pong game of black and white, but Howard is engaged in cooperative dialogue when he says things like;

“most humans don't want to be stupid,” which is simultaneously suggesting that they/we are in fact stupid…

… Anyway, enough about Howard. I know what side of the bread he spreads his dialectical butter upon –as do his non-cooperative protagonists- he spreads it on the same side I do, even though he would prefer to see otherwise… A friend recently described a similar phenomenon as a certain “intolerance towards intolerance which –naturally- makes one intolerant… … She finished the thought by musing; “Who hasn’t burned a few tires in that ditch?”

… And here is yet another statement of Howards many, many statements that I whole-heartedly agree with;

“I agree, we know so very little. But it's not that difficult to observe how our thinking affects our behavior.”

-which is one of the primary reasons why I pay so much attention to ‘dualistic ping pong games’ of linear linguistics… How and Why our thinking –and perceptions- affect our collective behavior…

… Your interesting essay leaves many avenues of exploration, but this latest response of mine was taking far too long to emerge, and was only promising to grow even longer if I didn’t hurry up and say ‘something’ before the new year began… :-)

Hi Lawrence,

Wish you the best for the New Year, I guess that's worth doing, noting that we do have an annual cycle we can observe, this being only about ten days from the winter solstice, in conjunction with this event we call the New Year.

Well, I didn't intend to call attention to Howard so much as my own efforts to describe the limits to what we know, how we decide what it is we know, and all the limitations that implies.

The ping pong game is just one of the repetitive cycles we can watch ourselves doing. Does the game of whacking opinions back and forth affect our "collective" behavior? And what would that mean, anyhow, "affect our "collective" behavior/" How could an individual with the phenomenological limitations of "mapping not being the territory" know? What is the nature of that so called "knowledge"? Why do you pay attention? -- and I ask that in the context of an imagined relationship of the notion we call "knowledge" to those kinds of exploratory grammatical revisions of dogmatic assertions.

Essentially I'm adopting an attitude of what I would call skepticism. When Howard asks his dialog partners to pay attention to "what is," I immediately ask myself what "what is" is to Howard, and I ask what "what "what is" is" is to me. And I think you can see how that sort of thing can go on imbedding itself. So having had to pull the plug on the old Windows 98 program a number of times because it gets itself into these binary calculation loops, I also ask how this logical exploration that Howard tends to propose can be solved without appealing to its own self referencing feedback loops. So far Howard hasn't been much help for me on that one either.

That's one of the problems I'm interested in. It implies to me an exploration into the place of what we call "thinking" in our own being. Which of course involves questions of what thinking could possibly be, how we think, what we do in the process, and so on. Is there an essential difference, for instance, between a thinking process that demands an conclusion, which satisfies the sense of "answer" and a process that is able to be with a sense of openendedness? For instance, a rhetorical question is often one that is asked with a specific, already determined answer as a goal. Very useful in a programmed population, perhaps (and a nod here to the new "Cracking the Code" forum). The issue of closed or open endedness in logical pursuit is just one question that can lead to a kind of logical probing. People that want closed endedness may not make good theoretical physicists, but they can work well in laboratories as excellent technicians. That's one "understanding" of the way it works. Buddhist thinking is also about a spiritual non closure of thought. Essentially this is a spiritual issue as I see spirituality. I see Western science as a spiritual quest in that sense, but more in the nature of some of the spiritual quests of Eastern mysticism than Western monotheistic, authoritarian deity based religions that have a sense of the "word of god" as their basis. Hence the deep philosophical chasm and the infernal reoccurring debate, now in the form of Intelligent Design.

And perhaps the probing leads to a kind of "gestalt" about itself that transcends conclusionary implications, but itself can't be turned into a logical explanation because the explanation is no longer the gestalt (the territory) and it becomes the infernal map making that is trapped in logic without insight. Or something like that, maybe a sculpture or a painting could present the whole of gestalt experience where words can't, but that's another exploration as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Ren:
Hi Lawrence,


Well, I didn't intend to call attention to Howard so much as my own efforts to describe the limits to what we know,

… Your efforts, my efforts, Howard’s efforts, hell, even Sawdust’s efforts –they’re all the same efforts. That’s why I mentioned Howard in the first place. We really are ‘all’ talking about the same thing (it seems to me :-), limitations and all… Liberals are judging conservatives. Conservatives are judging liberals. And Howard is just one of untold millions of would-be baby boomers who are judging the various ‘judgers,’ of all persuasions, for being so unproductively ‘judgmental’ –which simply makes them –and Howard as well- judgers, just like the rest of us… The circle is complete…
… In the past few years, I have asked the question –in a number of different ways; “How does my ‘judgment of judgment’ affect my own judgment?” Part of my motivation to ask such a question was simply the humor of it all. Another reason I asked this seemingly paradoxical question was in order to hopefully coax out an interesting dialogue or two, as I was certain that many others had surly bumped into this very same dilemma themselves, and that it seemed as though it would make for an interesting conversation all around… Few, if anybody, ever responded…
… So then, if I can easily acknowledge that my own particular judgment is of no less of an encumbrance than my so called protagonists –then how do I justify my own excesses, and –as you also contemplate;

quote:

how we decide what it is we know

…Yes indeed, how do we know what we know?…

quote:

and all the limitations that implies.

… And all the freedoms that such answers would –or should- imply…

… One of the reasons that I have slowed down on my postings, on this sight, or any others that I may have been dialoguing upon, is a reminder that I received which suggested that I might want to be a little careful about just how much of my so called book I might wish to share on these open portals. I was also reminded that there are certain individuals that surf the internet super highways looking for just such a creative idea or two, to call their own. And that if I was not careful, I might end up having to ‘ask their permission’ to say what I have been saying for twenty plus years on my own, simply because they published what I did not… Since there has already been a few creative business ventures that I envisioned –and lost out on, because others were able to capitalize on them before me- I know that I would feel at least a little disappointed if this same thing were to happen with my own, personal, intimate –yet universal- cosmology…

… However, with that said, I am sure that I can still inject a certain bedrock tenant right here and now, from that same said cosmology, with regards to that dastardly duality, that many find so easy to lampoon…

… At the very least… Let me re-emphasize that –AT THE VERY LEAST- this whole concept regarding ‘any’ interpretation of polarities, dualities, dyad’s, or duopolies should suggest –no, DEMAND- at least ‘one thing’ –if only one thing. And that ‘is’ that you cannot have ‘one’ without the ‘other’… That seems to me to be sooo simple, and yet sooo contemporarily misunderstood and ignored…
… Consequently, a democratic perspective ‘should be’ at least as valid as the conservative one…
… Reality shows us that this is not the case at all…

… The debate over ‘whose’ perspective is ‘more’ valid should not even be on the table yet, until we can ‘first’ acknowledge that there must be some sort of recognition of the veracity of ‘both’ perspectives, before we even consider the argument of which one is ‘more’ valid than the other…

… A few years ago, Sawdust came close when he suggested that he believed that we all harbored ‘a little bit of both’ with regards to a certain metaphorical ‘head and heart’ analogy that I am sure I must have been taking about… :-)

… Not to diminish in any way Sawdust’s/Don’s own observation –I would suggest that rather than it being a certain degree of ‘a little bit of both,’ respectively -that it is in fact much closer to 99 % one way, and 1% the other…
… It might be just a metaphor, but the difference between democrats and republicans is probably something closer to ’99 % for one, and 98 % for the other’… Hardly much difference in the grand scheme of things… But a huge difference none-the-less, when one is taking about consciousness, perceptions and beliefs, and the very nature of reality itself…

quote:

The ping pong game is just one of the repetitive cycles we can watch ourselves doing. Does the game of whacking opinions back and forth affect our "collective" behavior?

… Or even our collective beliefs? How could it not? And what comes first, belief or behavior? Nature or nurture? Behaviorists or Humanists, or Cognitive Psychologists, or even Metaphysicians?… And what are the criteria for inclusion?… The first criteria should be the ‘exclusion’ of little or nothing, since as we have witnessed so often here in America, there is one very large portion of the population of this country that truly believes in the complete dismissal of any and all beliefs and perceptions, from the ‘other’ –seemingly opposite- and equally large segment of the population… To compound matters even more, that other segment of the population believes the exact same thing…

quote:

How could an individual with the phenomenological limitations of "mapping not being the territory" know?

… Some would hope that ‘education’ might do the trick. However, when even our own educators are caught up in the divisive, dualistic delusion, how can they educate a way beyond an illusion they themselves are teaching to perpetuate?…
… ‘Unconventional wisdom’ has shown to be the only wisdom willing to entertain or even explore such possibilities… However, if I –or ‘we’- can find any success in explaining these possibilities to such a diverse group of individuals as can be found on the world wide web –as well as these very boards themselves- then maybe there is a certain hope for the ‘educational avenue’ after all… but if the academic elites cannot find it within themselves to explore more unconventional avenues with a least a greater degree of ‘openness’ –what hope will there be for ‘Joe Public’ through the educational process?… Very little, it seems to me…

quote:

What is the nature of that so-called "knowledge"?

… Well, I’m not an academic, and could probably never become one, but those types of questions –as well as the potential answers they would hope to engender- are as equally valid and exciting to this ‘Joe Citizen’ as it might be with any academic as well… Will we only allow the so-called ‘experts’ to be our only appointed ‘voices of reason’ when it comes to these very, very important matters, as the Joe Citizens of the world –much like me- step back and defer to ‘greater minds than our own?’… Me thinks not, when it is more than a little obvious for even this individual of limited formal education, to easily see that our highly educated academics are as equally guilty of ‘divining physical reality’ as do their contemporary political cohorts, with –metaphorically- (and maybe not so metaphorically) only giving credence to but a mere 50 % of reality (objective –as opposed to subjective)? ‘And’ if ‘consciousness’ itself is found to be the entire basis of physical reality, as we know it –as Thom recently suggested in a very recent radio broadcast- then just how significant can we truly regard that 50 % of reality, that the majority of humanity regards as more valid, in the first place?…

quote:

Why do you pay attention? -- and I ask that in the context of an imagined relationship of the notion we call "knowledge" to those kinds of exploratory grammatical revisions of dogmatic assertions.

… If you’re asking why ‘I’ specifically pay attention, I can only imagine that the reason, or reasons, would be for the same reasons others would as well –others that are interested enough to pay attention anyway. Because I have found a whole plethora of individuals in my life who are not in any way, shape or form interested in such musings… (And I do have a few guesses as to why that might be)
… Was it ‘ric’ that recently suggested that he believed that we are a species of ‘pattern seekers’ –or some such comment?… If he did say such a thing –I agree… I recall from the very earliest of my childhood imaginings of always being engaged in a never-ending process of ‘comparing’… I compared what I had to what my friends had. I compared my parents to my friends parents. I compared my brothers and sisters to others brothers and sisters. I compared cloths, lunches, shoes, haircuts, toys, days, weekends beliefs and even perceptions…
… I am sure that at a very early age, it did not take me too long to ‘compare’ what actions I undertook which brought me the reward of a nice warm bottle for what I perceived to be a very empty belly, as well as comparing what corresponding actions brought me no relief what so ever… We have a one year old granddaughter, and just a few days ago I was pointing out to somebody in the family how we were all happily enabling her, through a life of pure conditioning, as we jumped through hoops for her, every time she grew hungry, and ‘demanded’ to be satisfied… Hehehe, pretty funny no?… It is also pretty damn interesting as well…

… So, yes, it seems that we come out of the womb comparing, playing this dualistic game of pain and pleasure, hunger and satiety, wet and dry, hot and cold, loved and abandoned… Is it any wonder it only grows more and more complex, the older and more complex we ourselves become as well?… The most interesting question for me is ‘how is it’ that we begin –at a seemingly very early age- to start cataloging many of life’s unpleasantries with more objective, outer-directed gestalts of associations, and many of life’s finer moments with associations of a more inner-directed, subjective nature? Or, as in half the case with the rest of the population –metaphorically speaking- the ‘switches’ are turned off or on, in the apparent ‘opposite’ direction –where by seemingly ‘diametrically opposed’ associations are formed instead?… Fascinating…

… Still, why do I pay attention?… Because I have been paying attention since that first hunger pang stuck my awareness, as a baby, and I have been paying attention ever since –and will continue to do so, indefinitely– at least until the old model ceases to function as it has done so reliably in the past…

quote:

Essentially I'm adopting an attitude of what I would call skepticism.

… Is that ‘comparing’ also?… :-)

… This next comment is not intended to tell you how to proceed with your own life, it is just a simple statement that shares with you how I have approached this thing called ‘skepticism’ in my own…
… I don’t like the word ‘skeptic’ by itself. It leaves me with a feeling, or a sense of ‘excluding’ certain information, or certain parameters, or certain possibilities that a would-be skeptic might find ‘objectionable’… Typically, I have found in my life, that those areas where certain ‘skeptics’ have seen fit to plant their skeptical flags, are –in almost every single case- those ‘unconventional realms’ where I find myself find so exceedingly comfortable…

… As a fairly simple political analogy –most die-hard ‘skeptics’ are all too often that stereo-typical ‘left-brain, male, masculine, scientific, analytical, objective, reductionist, empirical type. Although I have always advocated for certain ‘split-brain’ matrimony, I do find myself almost uncannily residing at the seemingly ‘opposite’ end of the hemispheric equation, and attribute much of this unique anomaly to the simple fact that I was ‘born’ an ‘artist’… I do not feel ‘superior’ to my fellow entity, or entities, with their more left-brain proclivities –due to the G-d given gifts that they have been so unfairly deprived of- and find it rather ‘irritating’ that they themselves sincerely ‘do’ feel superior to me –and my own ‘creative’ sensibilities- as well as those folks much like me –be they democrat, liberal, intuitive, airy fairy, artistic, or in my case ‘all of the above’…

… Now then, I am sure that this little observation of mine does not apply to you, but for the most part –skeptics make me a little nervous… And where skeptics are just plain skeptical about those very areas where it would appear that they need to embrace the most, a more healthy approach –it seems to me- would be for a little less skepticism, and a lot more ‘open ended’ inclusion, and curiosity… Now, this should not detract in any way from Kate’s fine point that she just recently made in another on-going thread titled Spin Doctors where she made this observation;

1) the more "open" we are to possibilities, including the possibility that spin is "okay" because it simply reflects another's view of the world, the less able we are to identify and short-circuit very carefully worked out manipulation.

… and;

2) a cooperative dialogue, or its pursuit, allows the conversation to spin around the edges, sort of endlessly, without ever really confronting the "way things are."

… I would like to examine these points in much more detail later, but for now I just wanted to simply acknowledge them, with a promise of further explorations… :-)

quote:

. When Howard asks his dialog partners to pay attention to what is, I immediately ask myself what "what is" is to Howard, and I ask what "what "what is" is" is to me. And I think you can see how that sort of thing can go on imbedding itself.

… Yes, one of the first times I encountered this phenomenon was many years ago as a kid, I tried to come to terms –for myself and for others- just why it was that this thing we referred to as ‘common sense’ meant something completely different to completely different people… The concept of ‘duality’ helped to at least narrow down the parameters somewhat… More complexity never seemed to detract from the initial blueprint though. In fact, it only seemed to strengthen it even more…

quote:

And I think you can see how that sort of thing can go on imbedding itself. So having had to pull the plug on the old Windows 98 program a number of time because it gets itself into these binary calculation loops,

… Yes, but what a lovely binary loop it is, that something so utterly simple can grow into something so utterly complex…

quote:

I also ask how this logical exploration that Howard tends to propose can be solved without appealing to its own self referencing feedback loops.

… I’ve noticed. Personally, I happen to agree with Howard about what he perceives his ‘what is’ truly is… It’s a less polarizing, more inclusive vision of a world where a certain one dimensional, left-brain approach to experiential experience is –at the very least- ‘complimented’ by its often ignored ‘polar opposite’… This is –in one sense- a certain ‘balancing’ of another oft-repeated imbalance… It is also just as much an indictment, as well as a certain repudiation of that very same imbalance… Therefore, Howard –and the rest of us- are just as guilty as our protagonists of playing the same game of ‘black and white’… However, the game that we are playing is bringing ‘back’ to the playing field a certain ‘gestalt’ that has long since been yanked from the playing field, and is now being ‘reintroduced’ for an even more enlivening vesion of that age old classic we think of as ‘reality’…

quote:

That's one of the problems I'm interested in. It implies to me an exploration into the place of what we call "thinking" in our own being.

… I share in your interest, and excitement. Yes indeed, what is ‘thinking,’ and what is ‘consciousness?’… For the longest time, I equated both as one and the same. A few years ago, I read that consciousness and thinking were two different phenomena entirely… I don’t know if I believe this or not, or accept this or not. Or even how I would go about confirming this one way or the other. But the possibility is very intriguing nonetheless… My fondness for ‘simplifying’ very complex systems –at least as a point of departure- compels me to look at consciousness, and thought itself, as two potentially very primary constituents of reality as we know it… If one were concerned with the concepts of linguistics, and the dynamics of communication, than for one to leave out the importance of the contributions of ‘thought’ and/or ‘consciousness’ would be a very pale science indeed… And yet –for the most part- this is exactly where science finds itself in the twenty first century today… Obviously there are exceptions –but it is certainly not the ‘rule’…

quote:

Which of course involves questions of what thinking could possibly be, how we think, what we do in the process, and so on.

… All highly intriguing to be sure… And yet I have wondered myself that if far too many of these fascinating questions could actually be pulling us further and further away from a more equitable future, simply because so few of our fellow citizens are as captivated by such questions as these? In fact, it could be argued that at a time when we need to bring more and more to the dialectical table of ideas, the more complex the ideas become, the less attractive the debate becomes as well… I will never tell you to stop being so enamored with complexity –if that is your nature to do so- but I will most likely myself focus much more of my attention on the simplification process, simply because not only does that seem to be my nature as well -but also because it just makes good sense- politically, spiritually, or otherwise…

quote:

Is there an essential difference, for instance, between a thinking process that demands an conclusion, which satisfies the sense of "answer" and a process that is able to be with a sense of openendedness?

… Good question. I would think/believe that there is an essential difference… Okay, I don’t know about an ‘essential’ difference –that might take a little more probing- but the fact that there must be ‘a’ difference certainly seems beyond doubt. To what degree, is open to debate, or examination, or ‘experiencing’ itself…
… I can entertain and explore these questions and possibilities all day long, but I am also sure that John Q. Public doesn’t quite have the same patience for these questions as we do –and if we’re not careful, we could loose all the goodwill that could be gained from John Q. Public, long before he was ever ready to donate that goodwill it in the first place… I have tried on many, many occasions to talk to Mr. And Mrs. John Q, Public about these matters, and if I do not couch things in far simpler, and less complex analogies, they quickly loose focus and find themselves reverting back to more black and white, easy to comprehend, social metaphors… If that is going to be the tendency, the least we could do is couch those social metaphors in far more ‘inclusive’ clothing…

quote:

That's just one question that can lead to a kind of logical probing. And perhaps the probing leads to a kind of "gestalt" about it that transends conclusion, but can't be turned into a logical explanation because the explanation is no longer the gestalt (the territory) and it becomes the infernal map making that is trapped in logic without insight.

… It seems to me that these are what spiritual experiences are all about, not to mention the creative, artistic process itself. And this is an area that should be somewhat easier for the art of science, as well as the science of art to merge into the possibility of ‘one creative recognition’ of the others true worth and beauty…

quote:

Or something like that, maybe a sculpture or a painting could present the whole of gestalt experience where words can't, but that's another exploration as well.

… Maybe so. Although I have seen my share of beautifully written words and prose, that could rival –or compliment- any equally talented artist… Besides, as many an artist who has found themselves engulfed in the bliss of a certain mystical experience, through the auspices of the creative Muse itself, I myself found my own way to my first mystical experience through the well crafted words of an author who crafted a vision of our world, and the inclusion of an idea whose time had finally come… So powerful were the words, and the ideas shared themselves, I found myself in an almost ‘out of body’ experience, that quite literally changed my life irrevocably… Hence, I am an artist, with ‘my own’ fascination with the power of words and ideas themselves… Go figure, right?…

Lawrence,

I'm "skeptical" about whether I can get across what I "see," which is supposedly a function of the right cerebral cortex, and phenomenologically to me something of a whole, which when taken apart into little bitty bits and pieces with various processes, one of which I might identify as linear, rational thinking, utterly disappears. At that, I then I have to let it happen again, a process which I've learned to coax, and which is a gestalt, or epiphany-like experience -- that is, from what I can make of those terms. I'm not only skeptical I can get that sense of whole across to you, but to anybody; that's of course in the nature of skepticism.

Really, that's the long and the short of what I'm trying to express. I don't know what other "what is" there is, yours, Howard's, anybody's.

This may come as a bit of a shock to your well laid out, binarily opposed weltanschuang, but skepticism is quite spiritual and Buddhist in nature. But, of course, in Western tradition, skepticism goes back to the Fourth Century B.C. with the Greeks. In Greece it was derived from the word 'skeptomai', which meant "to look carefully and reflect." I can assure you I embrace that in heart, mind, and soul, no matter how poorly I do at it.

It's principle is the doubt that human beings can ever arrive at "any kind of certain knowledge," and that "all human knowledge is only probably true." That there does happen to be a cross over to modern day science is also not especially surprising. Not all people of science can do the real science, which requires an always open, probing, even doubting mind. And I must say I feel some kinship with that expression. After all, I'm well set up for it with my temperament preference of INFP, P being the preference for probing, open endedness, rather than closure and judgement of the "J"s. Of course all that's conceptual and conjectural, so I don't rely on it in any way, and remain happily skeptical of any temperament categorizations, even while I reference them.

Theoretical scientists live with the awareness that all they explore about the world and all the great and wonderful perceptions and speculations they have about it, the amazing things that come of the effort, all is perched upon not one single shred of absolute knowledge, even gravity remains only a theory. The best one's don't even have to pinch themselves to remember, it's a constant awareness, like enlightenment. These types of thinkers hold that all of science is made up of hypothesis that can never be absolutely proven true, only at best false, if that. In other words, for them the world is one huge undetermined mystery. In translation, many dogmatists (and these are often people of religion, though doubtfully of faith, since faith is a common thread between a truly spiritual seeker and a scientist, faith essentially rests on the understanding of skepticism) may turn it into dogma. What ever that was you ran across and described somewhere up there in that long tome, was either your own misconception, or your perception of some of those trained in the sciences but who can probably not tolerate that open ended mystery. They make excellent lab technicians, those purely rational and orderly types, but very, very lousy theoreticians. At least that's the story.

But we all like to tell stories.

One of the phenomenon that my mind creates, and that I'm discovering to be quite fascinating, is what I've been calling "paradox." Now this may be a cross over into your left and right thingie. A paradox is essentially two supposed "truths" that create a logical contradiction. Now given the fact that we conceptually create these truths, you can perhaps already sense where the weakness might be in the problem, yes our own limited self creating little minds. But if it's the weakness, perhaps it's also the strength, because in the seeing of the paradox is also the reordering of mind in what Gregory Bateson calls Level III thinking, which is impossible to describe, but implies a loss of the "self" identifier, the teller of stories -- particularly the daily soap opera -- and a blending with the whole of the universe, or some such thing. Zen masters, for instance, are known to have used the technique of presenting their students with koans, or paradoxical puzzles, to get them to "see" and recognize the limitations of their ever-knowing mindfulness.

... Well, alright then...

Lawrence (& Ren) - Nice to hear from you again. I stumbled across this thread earlier today, and just finished reading through it now. A few ideas came to mind when reading through this that I thought might help me do a better job at addressing Ren's assessment of some of my previous attempts: "So far Howard hasn't been much help for me on that one either." Since a number of assertions have been made about my views and actions, I'd like to make an attempt to be 'a little more helpful' explaining what I'm suggesting I understand myself to actually be saying or doing. I'll start with these two issues:

Why do you pay attention?
What 'what is' to Howard?

**The 'what is' I'm generally referring to is the actual nature of some issue, subject, or event that's being explored.

The 'what is' I observe directly in my life of what I pay attention to much of my own waking hours everyday is opportunities that groups like this one offer. Which is the opportunity to better understand one another and our relationship to everything around us.

For an example, if the question raised is: Why do you pay attention? The 'what is' is what we or I am actually paying attention to, and observing what our actual interest is in what we are actually attending to? Not theoretically, but what we directly observe and experience when we observe this aspect of our experience directly in ourselves. If we are doing this together in dialogue, then each one of us is observing our own selves attending to whatever it is we are attending to, and looking to see what interests us each about what we are actually attending to.

This brings me to a comment Ren made about the impression he has about the dialogue I'm suggesting:

"I also ask how this logical exploration that Howard tends to propose can be solved without appealing to its own self referencing feedback loops."

Let me see if I can explain this better now. What I'm suggesting primarily is not "logic". I'm trying to emphasize direct observation, as this seems to be what enables - 'connecting the dots', not logically but 'observationally', by seeing how things go together directly and observing directly for oneself what's actually occuring. I'm not suggesting to use logic or reason, but rather to experience directly what one is actually paying attention to and perhaps asking a question like: What is it that draws me to this, and then, most importantly - observing it, not speculating about it using logic. I find that when one asks questions like this, one can observe directly the thoughts and feelings that come up and observe the value or significance something actually has for us. Not theoretically, not logically, but how we actually think and feel about some aspect of life or some question like what do you pay attention to? It's a looking to see what we're actually doing and thinking (what is), in action, as it's actually occuring. It's not imagining what it might be, it's observing and experiencing 'what it actually is'. And that's the 'what is' I'm referring to. What we actually observe occuring, regarding some aspect of life that we're curious about being more intimate with.


Re: When Howard says things like; "That the way people 'think/interpret' is what is leading humans to destroy the ecosystem," I know he's referring to conservatives, and not a bunch of liberal environmentalists"

**While I'm pleased that you find some of what I say worth referencing, I wish you would phrase it as "I think or suspect he really means", rather than "I know he means."

I say this because "I don't mean conservatives." If I did, I'd probably say so. Yes I feel that certain ideas and actions are more destructive than others, but I feel this is really and truly a 'human issue', not a liberal or conservative issue. And one of the "interpretations" I feel is creating problems is the interpretation of liberals and conservatives, from either perspective, as being a case of "Us versus Them." I observe incoherence in thought across the political social & spiritual spectrum. It doesn't make sense to me to focus on who's thinking is incoherent, I'm interested in seeing clearly the nature of our human thinking, and the consequences related to the thinking, actually occuring, together with anyone else who sees the value in the possible clarity that such observations offer.

I'm trying to call attention to incoherent thinking, which doesn't actually produce the desired results that any person thinks it will, regardless of political leanings.

Here's one of the comments that always 'draws my attention': Howard has on more than a few occasions referred to this exercise of his in this manner:

"I've suggested several times that cooperative dialogue, which is the approach I always use, isn't about 'convincing' other's of one's opinions," -as 'cooperative dialogue, well, it just makes me chuckle.

**I'm glad I could provide a chuckle, but let me make another attempt to explain this. And please feel free to point out how to convey this more clearly than I've been able to, in case something comes to mind.

I'm not trying to 'convince' anyone of 'my opinion', or anyone's 'opinion'. To use the example of the 'ping pong game' of batting biased opinions back and forth endlessly, I may express an opinion that it's pretty dysfunctional for learning. If I do, I'm not interested in convincing you about 'my opinion' about the ping pong game. What I'm interested in is people looking directly for themselves at something like the 'actual behavior' we call the 'ping pong game' and 'seeing it's actual nature'. I suspect that an honest examination will confirm my opinion. But it's 'the actual nature of the ping pong game' that's important, not 'my opinion'. I'm interested in the observation of the actuality 'convincing' the person of whatever it's actual nature is, regardless of whether it confirms 'my opinion' or not. And if they observe something contrary to what I suggest, I hope they'll bring it to my attention so I can make sure my map is accurately reflecting reality.

It may give you a chuckle, but I'm truly not trying to convince anyone of my opinion. I'm recommending 'direct observation' and the sharing of our perceptions so that each of us can adjust our opinions/maps to match the reality more accurately...to the extent that's possible. This is important to me largely because I feel there's a tremendous difference between second-hand opinions and direct understanding. One is belief, the other is direct understanding. And that's why I'm not pushing opinions, because understanding is what we seems to be lacking, not more second hand opinions...'to my understanding'.


Re: And Howard is just one of untold millions of would-be baby boomers who are judging the various 'judgers,' of all persuasions, for being so unproductively 'judgmental' -which simply makes them -and Howard as well- judgers, just like the rest of us...

**This is another issue I seem to have trouble conveying clearly. I've tried very hard to explain my true sentiments that I have absolutely no interest in 'human value judgments'. I'm interested in looking at different 'ideas and actions', regardless of who's doing them, to see what results they actually tend to produce, which would then enable one to 'judge' their usefulness for doing certain tasks. Now if you are implying that I'm judging anyone personally, as in being higher or lower than anyone else due to their particular understanding, than I suggest you've made a false assumption about what I'm actually doing, and that you can't possibly know 'my internal' intentions. I've explained a number of times that my understanding is that life is 'one unitary movement'. To 'judge' one aspect of this 'one whole' as somehow being higher or lower in value is non-sensical to me. It's like saying the cells in my right leg are a 'higher value' than the cells in my left leg because our human culture has defined the right side behavior as being "higher". To "compare" one human with another human, in 'human value' is non-sensical to me. Each person has the same innate value as any other person. We may have different traits or skills, but that doesn't change a persons human value. It just means they can do certain tasks better than someone else. That's my 'actual perspective', regardless of whether it runs counter to the norm, one's past experience, or what anyone may think is impossible.


Re: I recall from the very earliest of my childhood imaginings of always being engaged in a never ending process of 'comparing'...


**And this seems to be a very healthy process of observing connections and the nature of our environment. But I suggest that it 'goes off-track' (becomes incoherent), when we start comparing one human to another, and 'expecting' one person to be like another person, or 'expecting' them to be like some cultural ideal. We are whoever we actually are at any given moment, not somebody else or someone's expectations of who we should be. Expecting someone to be other than they actually are is incoherent thought. And I'm not trying to convince anyone of that, I'm always inviting anyone who's interested to observe this aspect of life directly for themselves. If my suggestion is wrong, I'd like to fix it. But I suspect that my suggestion will be confirmed by a direct observation of this 'comparing' process, which seems common to humans. And it's the 'seeing of it's actual nature' that I hope will 'convince' us of what is actual, not my limited opinion or anyone elses limited opinion, about the actuality.

It's getting rather late, so I'm going to stop here. I hope this attempt to clarify what I'm suggesting "helped" a little?

Regards - Howard

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HowardW,

quote:

Ren: A paradox is essentially two supposed "truths" that create a logical contradiction. Now given the fact that we conceptually create these truths, you can perhaps already sense where the weakness might be in the problem, yes our own limited self creating little minds. But if it's the weakness, perhaps it's also the strength, because in the seeing of the paradox is also the reordering of mind in what Gregory Bateson calls Level III thinking, which is impossible to describe, but implies a loss of the "self" identifier, the teller of stories -- particularly the daily soap opera -- and a blending with the whole of the universe, or some such thing. Zen masters, for instance, are known to have used the technique of presenting their students with koans, or paradoxical puzzles, to get them to "see" and recognize the limitations of their ever-knowing mindfulness.

Hello, Ren.

Thanks for this part. I've been thinking about paradox ever since you brought it up, in the last day or so.

And, as you've suggested in Spin Doctors, I'll take a look at the Bateson book, and see about starting on page 300.

Ren -

Re: you can perhaps already sense where the weakness might be in the problem, yes our own limited self creating little minds. But if it's the weakness, perhaps it's also the strength, because in the seeing of the paradox is also the reording of the mind....

**You appear to be suggesting that the 'seeing' and the 'limited self' are one and the same?

Is 'seeing' an act of the limited self? Or does seeing occur when the mind isn't occupied with 'self-thought'?

What is the 'limited self' and can this limited self 'see'?

Howard, Chris, Ren, Lawrence, Sue and all, I hope your New Year was good. I know I'm glad it's over.

quote:

A few years ago, Sawdust came close when he suggested that he believed that we all harbored ‘a little bit of both’ with regards to a certain metaphorical ‘head and heart’ analogy that I am sure I must have been taking about… :-)

I remember that conversation and have always thought our consciousness is comprised of a certain ratio of instinct and intellect in varying ratios depending on the individual. Some of the most instinctive people I've known weren't exactly the brightest people. One guy I knew hit the deck when hearing an explosion rather than jumping up and looking around. He wasn't going to win any trivia awards but wasn't liable to get hit with in the head with flying metal either.

Happy New Year, Sawdust, everyone.

Howard,
… I realize that you present a very even tempered, nonplussed, nonjudgmental, and dare I say, ‘spiritual’ perspective, to the much more ‘spirited’ debate that passes for conversation –not only around here- but throughout the entire planet as well… I also think more of us should engage in this practice… I just don’t think this is a panacea per se -and maybe you don't either- but one of a number of helpful tools…
… If I were looking for a panacea myself, I would look at the problem, where we all find it ever so easy to see our fellow creatures as ‘apart’ or outside of our own sphere of influence, instead of within of ‘a part’ of it…

... Many thoughtful people have suggested that the reason we do this even today, was because many, many hundreds of thousands of years ago, it was a very real, and very smart evolutionary adaptation. Maybe there is some truth to this claim, or maybe there is very little. The real point however, is that it no longer makes the same sense now –if it ever did- that it did way back then… Obviously, as folks become more and more urban, that kind of instantaneous, instinctual reaction (hello Don :-), can only bring disastrous results –not to mention severe neurosis…

… It seems to me that the technique of ‘observing what is,’ employed by folks who see the world as outside and separate from themselves, will not bring further clarity to the situation, but because of their already ‘preconceived’ notions –this exercise will only act to ‘reconfirm’ what it is that they already believe… Could this technique of observing ‘what is’ –as important as it is- be something that comes later, after other more primary steps are taken first?… Just a thought...

… You are so very even tempered in your thought and presentation, sometimes I find it rather difficult to discern what it is that you are really trying to share… However, every now and then, one or two of what I would regard as ‘preferences’ does slip through the cracks, and I can finally bear witness to what it is that actually seems important to Howard. Simply because –it seems to me- when everything is approached with such an even tempered perspective, it is very difficult indeed to determine ‘what is’ is…

... When you have chosen to share some of the particulars of what it is that ‘you,’ Howard, considers important –like more environmental awareness, more equitable use of economic resources, and much more empathy, to name but a few- I can only smile, as I recognize “That’s what I believe as well!”… Some would identify these qualities that you champion as those being quite liberal, progressive, and even socialist in nature, and that’s fine, because that is ‘what is’ is, to most folks who have taken the time to observe… However, the more conservative, republican demagogues can also quite easily recognize these qualities as well…

… Consequently, when you are telling a captive audience that what the world is greatly in need of, is more ‘environmental awareness, more equitable use of economic resources, and much more empathy, to name but a few,’ half of your would-be audience is smiling, and thinking; “Yes, he’s talking about those liberal ideals, I hold so dear,” while the other half is ‘not’ smiling, and also thinking; “Yes, he’s talking about those liberal ideals, I so deeply loathe”… Again, it might seem to you as though you were being quite magnanimous, even tempered, and reasonable, but to the conservative, you are simply telling him that the way to his ultimate salvation is for him to start seeing things more like ‘you,’ and all the liberalism he loathes… Certainly you can see how ‘that’ would make any die-hard liberal like myself, chuckle, right?… Hey, more power to ya, if you can pull it off!… I just don’t think the conservative is going to be reeled in quite so cleverly… I could be wrong though. So I watch, listen, cheer your efforts –and chuckle…

… I would also like to say something about how I believe that many of the liberals deep down desire to ‘judge ye not,’ is only making this transition twice as hard as it really needs to be, simply because I see a very large block of the potential, and would-be, ‘vocal opposition,’ refusing to take up the mantle of ‘being and becoming’ that much needed vocal opposition, for fear of engaging in that very unspiritual exercise we call ‘judging’… This only helps to ‘enable’ the already extremely powerful ‘enablers’ and only prolongs the agony ever longer -or so I believe… I’ll save that topic for another time however. I just want to see if you (Howard) can see what it is/was I was trying to convey with these previous thoughts…

Greetings Sawdust,

I for one hardly noticed the Holidays, thus I had one of my best ever I suppose. It was just like any other time.

quote:

**You appear to be suggesting that the 'seeing' and the 'limited self' are one and the same?

That's a perplexing question, Howard. The first thing that comes up is to ask you what you mean by the 'limited self', because I see no such logical connection without knowing what that is to you.

If it will help, I'll tell you what I mean by "limited self creating minds," which did not include a fragmentary concept you seem to have pulled from the grammatical construction, which you then refer to as 'limited self.' In my sentence, "limited" refers to our conceived organic brain functions, which are also commonly referred to as minds, and, individual minds are, in this supposition, limited by phenomenological definition. In other words, when I constructed that sentence I was thinking "limited" modified "minds" not "self." I suppose a comma would have been helpful between limited and self, and a dash between self and creating. Sorry for the confusion if that's where it all goes awry. Of course if minds are limited, so are the selves they create. Our language processes can be observed to involve the creation of reference points in the grammar which give rise to the linguistic creation of "self" and its derivations, I, me, etc. In my own awareness I do not see a self other than through that process. So self is by that process an artifact of language and not an entity. If you can find any other selves, let me know, I might be interested in hearing about them.

In the way I'm using seeing, I'm conceptualizing mind seeing as a whole system, a kind of gestalt effect, as best we can point to it with language. You seem to be suggesting a notion of fragmentation. Not my intent.

quote:

Lawrence: Again, it might seem to you as though you were being quite magnanimous, even tempered, and reasonable, but to the conservative, you are simply telling him that the way to his ultimate salvation is for him to start seeing things more like ‘you,’ and all the liberalism he loathes… Certainly you can see how ‘that’ would make any die-hard liberal like myself, chuckle, right?… Hey, more power to ya, if you can pull it off!… I just don’t think the conservative is going to be reeled in quite so cleverly… I could be wrong though. So I watch, listen, cheer your efforts –and chuckle…

If you don't mind, I was hoping to add something to these little passages of thoughts with our crude tools we call words. And from reading your passage Lawrence, I had a strong image of a fisherman reeling in his prey. This has created a binary opposition of the fisherman and fish.

How about? Instead of a tug of war scenario, we create an atmosphere close to a farmers market? The farmers gather at the local farmers market and sell their produce. And they compete in a free market since information is perfect and many are competing for a limited amount of the market. If more potatoes are sold then less of other produce will be purchased.

So one farmer decides to see what other farmers are selling. He sees some nice Watermelon and Squash, so he decides to buy some. The other farmer now comes over and checks out his potatoes and tomatoes and decides he will also purchase some. No one was reeled.

Well in any case, I am willing to try some 'cooperative dialogue' with Howard at any time.

quote:

Of course if minds are limited, so are the selves they create.

Enjoyed this line, Ren.

quote:

Originally posted by Ren:

... I suppose a comma would have been helpful between limited and self, and a dash between self and creating....

Well, I had to return to the original sentence and see how it would look:

quote:

Now given the fact that we conceptually create these truths, you can perhaps already sense where the weakness might be in the problem, yes our own limited, self-creating little minds. But if it's the weakness, perhaps it's also the strength, because in the seeing of the paradox is also the reordering of mind

Lawrence - Yes, I see dialogue as one of a number of helpful tools. I call attention to it personally because it seems deserving of greater attention (look at how dysfunctional much of the conversation on these boards is), and my own background of having the priviledge of attending some of David Bohm's seminars when he was still alive, makes it something I feel I can talk about with some degree of familiarity.

Re: Could this technique of observing 'what is' -as important as it is- be something that comes later, after other more primary steps are taken first?

**Perhaps. I don't know off the top of my head. I see this as mainly a matter of 'interest' rather than 'capacity'. Did you have something in mind as a more primary step?


Re: when everything is approached with such an even tempered perspective, it is very difficult indeed to determine 'what is' is...

**Hmmm?? I'm not sure what to make of that? From time to time I actually get the impression that the reason people sometimes think I'm trying to convince them of my opinion is the passion I have for talking about dialogue. Are you suggesting the even temperedness is lacking a clear emphasis?


Re: The particulars of my own interests

**It pretty much runs the gamut for me. It's like George W. Bush's policies. Pick any of them, and it's flawed...it seems to me. I use the image of a carnival booth where you throw darts at the ballons to refer to Bush's policies. Pop any balloon and what you'll find is another flawed policy that gives advantages to the rich and marginalizes the working class and poor.

The biggest problem, to my estimation, is our fragmented relationship to one another. We're so divided over the minor variations in our beliefs & opinions that basically no issue gets addressed adequately. If we could learn to communicate and relate to each other more sanely, I suspect, it would improve our ability to address all of the issues, across the spectrum, as well as enabling us to more effectively implement a good suggestion when one is offered.

I've sort of pulled back on posting here myself due to the same "conventional wisdom" that you accurately pointed out that this place seems to currently attract. I attributed the change to Thom's - 'provocative radio personality', as opposed to the earlier attraction of primarily the reading of his books. And given that change, I've found that it's largely a waste of time talking about specific issues if the other person is using an adversarial debate approach. So that prompts me to take a step back and ask first how are we going to communicate with each other, and whether or not we are going to listen to each other or just yell at each other? If it's the latter, it's just too dysfunctional for me to invest time and energy into it.

Perhaps you are correct that what I'm suggesting will appeal more to liberals. But as I've mentioned previously here, one reason I felt it was important to suggest dialogue instead of adversarial debate was due to my own personal experience of sitting through many dysfunctional liberal meetings. And also observing how dysfunctional name calling is, whether it's conservatives doing it or liberals doing it. If only the liberals improved their communication skills, I think it could do wonders for better communicating our concerns more effectively to other liberals as well as with conservatives. Good communication is just good communication. It's not liberal or conservative communication, it's just good communication practices.

I make a habit of trying to listen to what people are saying, whether I agree with it or not, and quite often I hear conservatives make claims about liberals as being hate mongers, or ignorant, or uninformed, etc., etc. As ludicris as that might sound to you or I, it still reflects the under-lying beliefs. And I feel it creates a cognitive disonnance in many cases, or cracks in these flawed stereotypes, when liberals can talk respectfully and intelligently to conservatives. And I think that can lead to better relationships, and more effective ways of sharing our views with each other. Is it a panecea?...not to my understanding.

If I provide some chuckles, that's fine with me. My concern was whether I've clearly communicated my intentions clearly or not.


Re: Judging

**If I felt it would be beneficial in some way, I'd consider changing my approach. But I simply don't see or understand this to be a personal issue. It's a systemic issue to my understanding, so that's where the focus goes.

I feel it's a fallacy to think people 'know better'. When people do something we think is stupid, they may have some bits of knowledge they know about a certain issue, but they have a different 'understanding' of the issue than we do, and that's what's behind their behavior as well as ours. I suggest, as I frequently do, that it's incoherent to think people should have a different understanding than the actual understanding their behavior reflects.

What that means to me is that the 'thinking' is what needs attention. Not blaming people for thinking the way life has actually lead them to think. The other problem with thinking people should be other than they actually are is that it tends to hinder the possibility of decent communication. I'm all for vocal opposition where it's warranted. I just feel it should focus on the actual problem, rather than shifting the focus onto the individual and away from the chance of understanding the problem more clearly. If the problem is actually in the thinking or understanding, then focusing on the individual just distracts the attention away from the actual problem. Then instead of looking at where the incoherence is, people just argue about being wrongly judged...it seems to me.

That was my initial response to what it is you were trying to convey, since I'm such an impulsive character . Now, because I consider you a good friend, I'll take the pages I downloaded home and re-read your message when I have more time to ponder it, just in case I missed something.


Regards - Howard

Ren - I suspect I would have interpreted what I read differently with a comma. I thought the words went together. Anyways........

Let's use your explanation of "limited" "minds". I see or define the mind as essentially the 'existing knowledge base'.

If we present an engineering problem to two people, one who's an engineer, and the other who has no real engineering knowledge, the engineer 'mind', with it's related past experience, will more likely know what the nature of the problem is. I observe the mind or knowledge base as operating primarily in the "interpretation stage", in reference to your Level 3 link:
http://www.memecentral.com/L3Communication.htm

And I experience the 'corrective seeing' or 'insight' which "re-orders the mind", as a function of the 'perception phase' of the 'whole system'. I experience 'insight' as the corrective function, and mind as what interprets or makes sense of the 'perceived new order'. I think if one goes in closer, instead of "conceptualizing mind seeing as a whole", that perhaps the paradox doesn't exist? Because it's not knowledge which has insight. It's insight which re-orders the thinking mind.


Re: which did not include a fragmentary concept you seem to have pulled from the grammatical construction

**Can you see how this might be interpreted as "condescending"? (I couldn't resist)


Regards - Howard

quote:

**Can you see how this might be interpreted as "condescending"? (I couldn't resist)

Howard,

I apologize if that came across as condenscending. I probably should stay off the boards for a few days, I was splitting wood Monday, and a few hours later it felt like someone stuck an ice pick into my back, just above my pelvis. The result being that my mind has a certain awareness which undoubtedly gets into my thoughts. I see it as self depracating dry humor, but not everyone else does. The other problem is I can't sit for too long and I start rushing to get done. Not a good mind set for contemplative efforts.

I liked your effort to make sense of Level III thinking and the effects on whole mind, and the resulting awareness of what is at one level paradox.

Kate - I addressed a number of points in my last response to Lawrence, so it's not clear what I specifically didn't explain very well?

What I think I suggested was that Bohm-style dialogue isn't a cure all, but it's the best tool I know of to adequately address our communication difficulties that hinder responding adequately to just about any large challenge we face, regardless of whether one is a liberal or a conservative. And I suggested that personal judgments just distract attention away from the real problem, which is thought based, to my understanding.


Ren - I guess you aren't the only one who's humor doesn't always communicate well? I was joking about your similar comment the other day regarding my repititious dialogue comments to you. I really took no offense to your statement.

Sorry to hear about the "ice pick pain."

I seem to have a similar tendecy to rush responses as well.

I think I may have already mentioned that I really liked the Level III explanation of perception and interpretation? It seemed to put my own direct experience into a clear explanation.

Regards - Howard

quote:

Originally posted by HowardW:


Re: Could this technique of observing 'what is' -as important as it is- be something that comes later, after other more primary steps are taken first?

**Perhaps. I don't know off the top of my head. I see this as mainly a matter of 'interest' rather than 'capacity'. Did you have something in mind as a more primary step?

... Well, actually, yes -now that you mention it... Just two little paragraphs prior to 'this' quote of mine you just referenced, I did suggest something else I had in mind...

quote:

Lawrence:
I just don’t think this is a panacea per se -and maybe you don't either- but one of a number of helpful tools…
… If I were looking for a panacea myself, I would look at the problem, where we all find it ever so easy to see our fellow creatures as ‘apart’ or outside of our own sphere of influence, instead of within of ‘a part’ of it…

... Just a simple observation of what can easily be referred to as 'separation reality'... Something you, stated quite nicely not two paragraphs later, yourself;

quote:

Howard:
The biggest problem, to my estimation, is our fragmented relationship to one another. We're so divided over the minor variations in our beliefs & opinions that basically no issue gets addressed adequately. If we could learn to communicate and relate to each other more sanely, I suspect, it would improve our ability to address all of the issues, across the spectrum, as well as enabling us to more effectively implement a good suggestion when one is offered.

... As a matter of fact, if you look waaaay up to the top of this thread, where I first entered this dance, it was just such an observation -that you make now- in which I made then...
... I saw Chris's thread -and I always read what he has to say- affirmed our shared goals and shared desires. Told a personal story of our very first introduction. And simply pondered -as you suggested- if maybe a little better communication could be exercised... Not surprisingly, he too agreed...

quote:

Re: when everything is approached with such an even-tempered perspective, it is very difficult indeed to determine 'what is' is...

**Hmmm?? I'm not sure what to make of that? From time to time I actually get the impression that the reason people sometimes think I'm trying to convince them of my opinion is the passion I have for talking about dialogue. Are you suggesting the even temperedness is lacking a clear emphasis?

... Often times, yes. Not always, of course. But often times, yes. That's what I'm suggesting. At least as far as the 'even-temperedness is concerned. Not so with 'passion' however. Passion is obviously something else entirely...
... Now with Chris, hehehe, there is no lack of a clear emphasis... Passionate?... to say the least... But in his case -a little... apprehension... would be... what?... a breathtaking change of pace?... Hehehe, it would be most difficult indeed, me thinks, to place a metaphorical halter, on the raging stallion we know as passion, or conviction, or even Chris... But still... Words can be more compassionately employed... it seems to me...

quote:

Re: The particulars of my own interests

**It pretty much runs the gamut for me. It's like George W. Bush's policies. Pick any of them, and it's flawed...it seems to me. I use the image of a carnival booth where you throw darts at the ballons to refer to Bush's policies. Pop any balloon and what you'll find is another flawed policy that gives advantages to the rich and marginalizes the working class and poor.

... Well, that's what I'm talkin' about!... Now that we've acknowledged the 'problem' -let's go about mining for solutions!... we don't have to 'hate' GW, and the ship he rode in on, to come to terms with what 'what is' is, but it seems to me that it is more than 'imperative' that we at least acknowledge 'the problem!'... Unfortunately, sometimes the 'problem' that needs to be acknowledged, comes in the form of an 'individual'... But that only makes the task twice as difficult for the healing agent -or agents- because it only 'personalizes,' or 'demonizes,' or 'individualizes' a psychological, sociological, and/or spiritual 'transformation' -or epiphany- that must be mid-wifed 'collectively' and 'universally,' by all... it seems to me...

quote:

Perhaps you are correct that what I'm suggesting will appeal more to liberals. But as I've mentioned previously here, one reason I felt it was important to suggest dialogue instead of adversarial debate was due to my own personal experience of sitting through many dysfunctional liberal meetings. And also observing how dysfunctional name calling is, whether it's conservatives doing it or liberals doing it.

... Once or twice in the past few years, I have reminded one or two people that 'we' (liberals, progressives, and democrats) are the 'empathy' people. And 'empathy people' to not drag other people into verbal mud-slinging matches -no matter what side of the ideological fence they might seem to stand on... It does more to undermine our credibility than almost anything I can imagine, and frustrates me beyond description... Yes, liberals are just as guilty as conservatives, and it only seems to be growing worse...

quote:

If only the liberals improved their communication skills, I think it could do wonders for better communicating our concerns more effectively to other liberals as well as with conservatives. Good communication is just good communication. It's not liberal or conservative communication, it's just good communication practices.

... There's no argument there... The 'fundamentals' that I would wish to reiterate however, is that although 'poor communication' is obviously 'both' a liberal 'and' conservative problem -the very real problems that do plague us, are far more conservative, and conventional in nature -and far less 'liberal' in scope, or degree...

quote:

I make a habit of trying to listen to what people are saying, whether I agree with it or not, and quite often I hear conservatives make claims about liberals as being hate mongers, or ignorant, or uninformed, etc., etc. As ludicris as that might sound to you or I, it still reflects the under-lying beliefs.

... Well, as much as I hate to see it -or even admit it- I think these observations are very much right on. I see it every single day, and even though I 'understand' why, I can find very little excuse for it -particularly from liberals... It's just inexcusable... And almost embarrassing... Okay, not 'almost'. It 'is' embarrassing...

quote:

And I feel it creates a cognitive disonnance in many cases, or cracks in these flawed stereotypes, when liberals can talk respectfully and intelligently to conservatives. And I think that can lead to better relationships, and more effective ways of sharing our views with each other. Is it a panecea?...not to my understanding.

... Hehehe, well, the more we seem to talk about it, the more it actually does seem like it 'could' be a panacea... What I was thinking of as more of a panacea per se, was the concept of 'good and evil' itself... If we could share the very real problems that such a metaphor suggests to humanity, as to how to engage with ones fellow man, because of this age-old concept, well, 'this' could be that panacea I was referring to...

quote:

**If I felt it would be beneficial in some way, I'd consider changing my approach. But I simply don't see or understand this to be a personal issue. It's a systemic issue to my understanding, so that's where the focus goes.

... It's just the 'even tempered' thing... Sometimes all that is required is to simply take a stand, and to state that stand clearly... I think you've done that quite well here...

quote:

What that means to me is that the 'thinking' is what needs attention. Not blaming people for thinking the way life has actually lead them to think. The other problem with thinking people should be other than they actually are is that it tends to hinder the possibility of decent communication. I'm all for vocal opposition where it's warranted. I just feel it should focus on the actual problem, rather than shifting the focus onto the individual and away from the chance of understanding the problem more clearly. If the problem is actually in the thinking or understanding, then focusing on the individual just distracts the attention away from the actual problem. Then instead of looking at where the incoherence is, people just argue about being wrongly judged...it seems to me.

... I agree... And we both agree that 'poor communication' -whether it comes from liberals 'or' conservatives- is unproductive under any circumstances... With that said, the problems of the world -or 'what is' if you will- are very nearly always, and almost unequivocally 'conservative, conventional, status quo problems' -and very, very minutely- liberal problems... Which forces the conservative into a very uncompromising position indeed... Which is yet another problem, all by itself, where people might tend to 'argue about being wrongly judged'...

quote:

Now, because I consider you a good friend, I'll take the pages I downloaded home and re-read your message when I have more time to ponder it, just in case I missed something.

... Hehehe, nope, I think that about covers it... And I consider it an honor to be your friend...

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

If you don't mind, I was hoping to add something to these little passages of thoughts with our crude tools we call words. And from reading your passage Lawrence, I had a strong image of a fisherman reeling in his prey. This has created a binary opposition of the fisherman and fish.

... So, I would guess that the old metaphor of 'haulin' em in with a net' won't help to ease that binary opposition much either, heh?...

quote:

How about? Instead of a tug of war scenario, we create an atmosphere close to a farmers market? The farmers gather at the local farmers market and sell their produce. And they compete in a free market since information is perfect and many are competing for a limited amount of the market. If more potatoes are sold then less of other produce will be purchased.

So one farmer decides to see what other farmers are selling. He sees some nice Watermelon and Squash, so he decides to buy some. The other farmer now comes over and checks out his potatoes and tomatoes and decides he will also purchase some. No one was reeled.

... It's interesting that you mention the old fashioned farmers market analogy. I used the same analogy a few months back as I was trying to fashion a story as to what might happen in our metaphorical maketplace when one lucky merchant suddenly comes to the realization that he has cornered the market on the eggs that all the other merchants have come to depend upon...

... It seemed like an interesting teaching tool at the time, although I don't recall if it ever went any further than my own imagination...

quote:

Well in any case, I am willing to try some 'cooperative dialogue' with Howard at any time.

... Yes, Howard would surly make the process at least agreeable... Although I might just see an opportunity to engage in a little cooperative dialogue of my own, with Sawdust, when he presents such intriguing possibilities, with a statement he shares like this;

quote:

have always thought our consciousness is comprised of a certain ratio of instinct and intellect in varying ratios depending on the individual

... Hey Howard, help me out here. I don't want to blow this chance of talking 'consciousness, intellect, and instinct' with Don!...

... Let the dialogue begin!...

Lawrence, I've heard that Einstein had trouble tying his shoes. I've also met guys with lots of common sense who, there is no other way to put it, weren't bright. Like Einstein, I know people who are brilliant but don't have enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heal.

These are just my observations. I've heard psychologists talk about the lizard brain. which gets me closer to a physiological explanation of why, it seems to me, common sense and intellect come from different parts of the brain and a stupid person can have more common sense than an intelligent one.

I think that, to a certain extent, it might explain attitudes which certain people with whom I've become familiar with here look at life and government. There are some very intelligent people who spend time writing here who come up with intellectual theories about how to make government better which common sense knows are unworkable.

Sawdust,

I'd be interested in a common sense definition of the term, "common sense."

Howard,

I guess I'm curious where you've gone after the David Bohm insights. Who are you reading and where is the next place for your journey?

quote:

I'd be interested in a common sense definition of the term, "common sense."

No doubt.

Lawrence -

Re: Primary steps

**Acually, I tend to envision cooperative dialogue as a primary step before expecting our fellow creatures to see themselves as 'a part' within. This to me is a good topic to explore in dialogue. But I can see how having an interest in doing group dialogue might require some degree of understanding the we're in this together. I don't care which comes first personally, I just thought that facing the fact that one can't do much by oneself, or our current lack of community, might be enough motivation for many people to consider the possibility of doing it.


Re: Well, that's what I'm talkin' about...Now that we've acknowledged the 'problem' -let's go about mining for a solution.

**Where I differ here is that I suggest what we've acknowledged is the "symptoms", not the problem. And if we go about mining for a solution, I suggest that the solution will require finding an effective manner to address the incoherence in the beliefs & opinions that are producing these catastrophic symptoms.

Again, I don't see the "individual" as the problem. I see 'some' of the 'views' (beliefs & opinions) these individuals have, which drive them to act in the way they do, as the actual problem.

So now that I've told you 'how it seems to me', regarding this "mining about", what do you think the solution is?


Re: the 'good and evil' metaphor

**One of the most excellent topics for dialogue exploration


Aside from that, we seem to be largely in agreement on all the other points you made.

Regards - Howard

Kate - Let me get back to you on your question later or tomorrow, as I'd actually like to share the book list. But as usual I'm in the beginning or middle of several books.

Regards - Howard

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:
Lawrence, I've heard that Einstein had trouble tying his shoes. I've also met guys with lots of common sense who, there is no other way to put it, weren't bright. Like Einstein, I know people who are brilliant but don't have enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heal.

These are just my observations. I've heard psychologists talk about the lizard brain. which gets me closer to a physiological explanation of why, it seems to me, common sense and intellect come from different parts of the brain and a stupid person can have more common sense than an intelligent one.

I think that, to a certain extent, it might explain attitudes which certain people with whom I've become familiar with here look at life and government. There are some very intelligent people who spend time writing here who come up with intellectual theories about how to make government better which common sense knows are unworkable.

quote:

Kate:

Sawdust,

I'd be interested in a common sense definition of the term, "common sense."

quote:

Sawdust:

No doubt.

Good example of cooperative exploratory dialog.

Don, you've set up a binary opposition that I imagine looks familiar to a lot of folks, maybe pretty much everyone. It's kind of like an urban myth, ...perhaps even common sense? In your brief hypothetical propostion, you seem to see a correlation between something you haven't defined, you've called it "common sense," and a very questionably accurate neurological brain process diagnosis by a couple of writers whose background seems to be in business, broadcast journalism and personal creativity motivation work in a business environment -- which I found explained through your linked article on the "lizard brain." Was that your intention?

Lawrence, Don, Kate, Ren, anyone -

Re: Consciousness, intellect, instinct and "common sense".

**My take on 'common sense' is this: It seems that alot of people confuse their individual interpretation of 'what makes the most sense to them' to be a "commonly shared fact". And clearly that's not the case.

Since it refers to something which is "common", then I think the closest thing that could possibly be called common sense would be the cultural perspectives 'most commonly shared' by the group of people being considered. But an accurate assessment of this and agreement on whether it actually makes sense, I suspect would always be a topic of dispute.

Re: Don's suggestion of: consciousness is comprised of a certain ratio of instinct and intellect in varying ratios....

**This is what I was roughly calling "mind" in the discussion with Ren yesterday. My little desk dictionary says that 'conscious' means "awake and aware of one's surroundings". If we are talking about what leads people to act in the way they do, then I would want to add 'awareness' to instinct and intellect (what we know or understand), which also comes in varying ratios, and is an important aspect of why people behave in the manner they do...it seems to me.

Is that what we're talking about, or something else?

Don also suggested that "common sense and intellect come from different parts of the brain", but I'm more interested in what they are than which part of the brain they come from. I see a persons common sense as dependent on their intellect.

Regards - Howard

quote:

Howard:

Is that what we're talking about, or something else?

I don't know about a "we." I'm asking Don to help me understand what he means by "common sense."

Tough question. It's like a description I heard once about pornography. The guy said, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it."

I think common sense and instinct, for the sake of this conversation are closely related. I gave an example of my friend who ducked when hearing an explosion. I will admit that I am probably more intelligent than he, but once I was on a jobsite with him and a tar kettle blew up. His instinct told him to protect himself and my stupid ass jumped up to see what the noise was.

I think we all know what common sense is.

quote:

Don also suggested that "common sense and intellect come from different parts of the brain", but I'm more interested in what they are than which part of the brain they come from. I see a persons common sense as dependent on their intellect.

I don't know enough about the functioning of the brain to suggest that, but I think that at least conceptually, a description of the different functionings of the new cortex and the cerebellum helps me visualize the way some people act.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:
Lawrence, I've heard that Einstein had trouble tying his shoes. I've also met guys with lots of common sense who, there is no other way to put it, weren't bright. Like Einstein, I know people who are brilliant but don't have enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heal.

These are just my observations. I've heard psychologists talk about the lizard brain. which gets me closer to a physiological explanation of why, it seems to me, common sense and intellect come from different parts of the brain and a stupid person can have more common sense than an intelligent one.

... Yes, I would have to agree that your own personal observation looks equally familiar to me as well. However, It might help the 'cooperative dialogue' along if we both -or all- could come to an agreement on quite possibly just exactly what common sense 'is not'...
... Being the strong political ideologue that I am, I have always regarded common sense as being inextricably bound up in my own political, social, and cultural perceptions about reality, and what I view as paramount, or primary... I also recognize that the more conservative amongst us also seems to weave the thread of common sense into their own cultural tapestry as well, and therefore realize that we are seemingly left with at least 'two' opposing versions of that supposedly universal conjoiner, 'common sense'...

... Do we need to carefully peel the layers off of our respective ideological associations of what we have each assigned 'common sense' to mean, or is it enough to know that our shared perceptions are at the very least -biased- and we can therefore still proceed with the hope of a shared 'dialogue' nonetheless?...

quote:

I think that, to a certain extent, it might explain attitudes which certain people with whom I've become familiar with here look at life and government. There are some very intelligent people who spend time writing here who come up with intellectual theories about how to make government better which common sense knows are unworkable.

... And in the spirit of cooperative dialogue, and the potentially shared recognition that common sense appears to have at least 'two' versions of its common sensical self -wouldn't you have to 'also,' agree that "There are some very intelligent people who spend time writing here who come up with intellectual theories about how to make government better which common sense knows are unTENABLE?"...

... I agree that some of the intellectualizing that comes out of the mouth of my fellow liberals is -at times- seemingly 'mindless'... Surly you can agree that some of the debate that comes out of the mouths of our would-be protagonists is nothing short of 'heartless'...

... Might this glorious conjoiner we call 'common sense' be more universally embraced, or understood, if we can lay it upon the alter of 'cooperative dialogue' as a meeting place of 'common ground' for these two seeming paradoxes, we know as 'the head and the heart?'...

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:
Tough question. It's like a description I heard once about pornography. The guy said, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it."

I think common sense and instinct, for the sake of this conversation are closely related. I gave an example of my friend who ducked when hearing an explosion. I will admit that I am probably more intelligent than he, but once I was on a jobsite with him and a tar kettle blew up. His instinct told him to protect himself and my stupid ass jumped up to see what the noise was.

I think we all know what common sense is.

The what is "is" issue, essentially. And that brings up the conflict between the rationalist approach and the "it all depends" or relativist approach, which themselves have differing epistemological bases.

That brings up the little story about a couple of good umpires who were being interviewd by a reporter, one a young idealistic umpire and the other an older, seasoned one. When asked how they were so good at being able to tell the balls from the strikes, the young umpire piped up and proudly said, "I calls them like they is." The old umpire said, "I calls them like I sees them."

In general meaning is considered to be contextual, although it's true that each word can be put in a dictionary and if you go there you can come up with a pretty good list of suggestions to use in a contextual situation or if you just want to have a debate about what "is" is. Or is that, what is "is"? I suppose one could say a dictionary definition is the "is" of the meaning. But is there really an "is" to common sense or do we have contextual understanding of it that may vary, even considerably?

I ask because I don't agree with you, Don, that not being able to tie one's shoes is an example, let alone a sign of lack of common sense. So I wondered if we differ there, how many other ways might we differ on our contextual understanding? And I wonder if possibly there might be a pattern to your thinking that might help me understand other possible misunderstandings.

Albert Einstein is supposed to have suffered from a neurological disorder identified as dyslexia. That disorder can cause lots of complications for people facing ordinary tasks that we might consider take mere common sense to do.

I find in researching the notion that it includes many ways of looking at the term by different people, one of which comes somewhat close to your instinct notion, and that's the pre theoretic belief concept.

The only reason I am discussing it at all is because of the very difficulty of agreeing even at fundamental levels about what it is we are talking about, and how the lack of solid, absolute definitions is one of the important features we all bring to a dialog these days where we are spread out around the world, and can share differing contextual experiences.

I knew a number of trip wire vets after Vietnam that behaved like your friend does. Some of them went on to get PhD's, some ended up under bridges with wine bottles and shopping carts. We all bring a multitude of differing impressions to any conversations, and it's extremely difficult to know which of our words are going to trigger them off and take someone down a path we don't see ourselves. What of all these differing impressions each of us has of words and phrases are we supposed to overlook in order to have a cooperative dialog?

Kate - This seems a bit out of place here now, so hopefully those following the dialogue can just skip over this response to your question?

Re: I guess I'm curious where you've gone after the David Bohm insights. Who are you reading and where is the next place in your journey?

Here are 'some' of the books:

These are at the front of the line at this moment:

Beyond Belief - Robert Bellah
The Great Turning - David Korten
A Sociable God - Ken Wilber
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life - Erving Goffman
Spiritual Enlightenment - Jed McKenna
The Future of the Media - Robert McChesney
Science and Method - Henri Poincare
Whose Freedom? - George Lakoff
The Unconscious Civilization - John Ralston Saul
What Is Life? - Erwin Schrodinger
The Open Society and It's Enemies - Karl Popper
The Deep Democracy of Open Forums - A. Mindell


These are 'some' of the books I read part of but have not finished that are next on the list:

The End of Faith - Sam Harris
The Authoritarian Personality - T.W. Adorno
The Essential David Bohm
The Guru Papers - Kramer & Alstad
Dark Ages America - Morris Berman
Moral Politics - Lakoff
Are Prisons Obsolete - Angela Davis
Imperial Ambitions - Chomsky
The Participatory Mind - Skolimowski
Celebration of Awareness - Ivan Illich
Presence - Peter Singer
The Collapse of Globalism - John Ralston Saul
Coming Home to the Pleisticene - Shepard
To Be Human - J. Krishnamurti
Facing a World in Crisis - J. Krishnamurti
The Impossible Will Take a Little While - Paul Loeb
Where Division Ends - Maurice Ash
A Thousand Plateaus - Deleuze & Guattari
The Dream and the Nightmare - Magnet (An anti-sixties book, supposedly one of Dubbya's favorite books)
Finding Our Way - Margaret Wheatley
A World Cafe - David Isaacs
Escaping the Matrix - Richard Moore

And these are some of my favorite books I always keep nearby for occasional re-visiting:

Thought As a System - David Bohm
Changing Consciousness - David Bohm
Science and Sanity - A. Koryzbski
The Art of Awareness - J. Samuel Bois
Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi
What's Next After Now? - Steven Harrison
Doing Nothing - Steven Harrison
The Primacy of Perception - Merleau-Ponty
Mind Without Measure - J. Krishnamurti
Freedom From the Known - J. Krishnamurti

Regarding where I've gone, for one place, here with my fellow human beings. I've basically gone to where I suspect there might be some other people who may be interested in creating a more harmonious and life-enriching world.

The 'next place' appears to be continuing to move away from conversations with people who seem to have no interest in listening or exploring, and towards conversations and meetings with people who truly seem interested in asking and exploring life's deeper questions, like: Who Am I? What is the nature of my relationship to everything around me? Can humans learn to live together sanely?

Regards - Howard

Howard, sorry it took so long to respond. I was just sort of ‘idling in neutral,’ while waiting to see if Sawdust was going to expand further on the concept of ‘common sense,’ in our own seemingly short-lived version of ‘cooperative dialogue’… Don’t worry though, I ain’t givin’ up quite yet!…

quote:

Originally posted by HowardW:
Lawrence -

Re: Primary steps

**Acually, I tend to envision cooperative dialogue as a primary step before expecting our fellow creatures to see themselves as 'a part' within. This to me is a good topic to explore in dialogue.

… Well then, let the exploring begin!…

… I can look upon this statement, where you ‘tend to envision cooperative dialogue as a primary step before expecting our fellow creatures to see themselves as 'a part' within’ in at least two different ways. One, as agreement. And two, the opposite. First of all, I agree with your observation regarding the primacy of such a step before –or as a companion to- getting to those further steps that we so envision, as any liberal would… But it is not the ‘liberal’ that we need to convince, with regards to the value of ‘cooperation’ now is it?… That’s why I would suggest that another step might need to come before this one…

quote:

But I can see how having an interest in doing group dialogue might require some degree of understanding the we're in this together. I don't care which comes first personally, I just thought that facing the fact that one can't do much by oneself, or our current lack of community, might be enough motivation for many people to consider the possibility of doing it.

… Fair enough. I guess if I were to use an example of what it is that I’m getting at, I would have to use the example of the supposed ‘contract with America’ that Newt Gingrich, and his conservative cronies dreamed up when they swept into congress in 1994… They convinced themselves that the voting public was calling for a whole new ‘conservative’ direction for the country that did ‘not’ include anything that even remotely hinted of democrat, or liberal… As a matter of fact, many of these newly arriving partisan politicians were so opposed to ‘anything’ that liberals, progressives, and democrats stood for, that they quite vociferously declared that there would no longer be ‘any’ compromising with democrats, because democratic values were of such a loathsome commodity in the first place –in their eyes- that there was nothing that the democrats had, that was worth compromising to -or for- to begin with…
... This is the ‘other half’ of any group that one would have to accommodate, or consider, if one were to hope to engage in any degree ‘cooperation’ with one party, as well as another…
… To be fair, I would not even personally ‘try’ and convince such die-hard and hate filled partisans in the first place. I would be much more interested in trying to engage their more moderate members, and leave these others to atrophy in their own hatred…
… Now, in a most interesting turn of events, we have the 2006 election, and the newly formed 110th Congress. Suddenly, the ‘spirit of compromise’ is in the air, and even being mouthed by some very conservative voices to boot! I would venture to guess that these are those very same ‘moderate’ voices that I would have hoped to play to in the beginning, and that those uncompromising die-hards that reared their ugly heads way back when, will still be the very same die-hards even today…
… Do these more moderate conservatives still need to be convinced of the value of compromise, and cooperation, or can we simply count on them to ‘get on board’ no matter how rough the journey?… I think a very strong argument ‘still’ needs to be made, for these very pragmatic people that will help sooth their intellect –other than it just simply being ‘the right thing to do’…

quote:

**Where I differ here is that I suggest what we've acknowledged is the "symptoms", not the problem.

… Okay, like a doctor says; “You’re flush, you feel sore all over, and your temperature is to the roof!” –that’s the symptom…
… “It looks like you have a fever,” the doctor then declares –that’s the problem…

… I realize that some people don’t really give a hoot about all those ‘technical’ details that are the symptoms, and would be more than happy to get right to the diagnosis –I am personally not one of them… I feel almost ‘empowered’ when I have all the facts at my disposal, even though –when all is said and done- the so-called ‘expert’ is going to give me the same diagnosis, (i.e. ‘the problem’) regardless… Is it really necessary to build this false dichotomy of ‘symptoms and problems,’ when it’s really just a simple matter of ‘adequate information’ or ‘none?’…

quote:

And if we go about mining for a solution, I suggest that the solution will require finding an effective manner to address the incoherence in the beliefs & opinions that are producing these catastrophic symptoms.

… And there we have it –‘beliefs and opinions’… Or, to use your phrase ‘incoherent’ beliefs and opinions…
… Hehehe, while engaging in ‘cooperative dialogue’ -what’s the most ‘effective manner’ in which ‘half’ of the cooperative participants, in this dialogue, can convince the ‘other half’ that we wish to address the ‘incoherence’ of ‘their’ beliefs and opinions?…
… Obviously, what I’m trying to suggest is, that I see your own approach, or perspective, as no less of a ping pong game than the one I employ, as well as the same one employed by our would-be protagonists, whose incoherent beliefs and opinions we both easily recognize… I say acknowledge and recognize our differences for what they are, because it will be these very same differences that will be laid upon the table of ‘cooperative dialogue’ for –at the very least- ‘equal’ consideration… If there is no real, existential difference between your perspective and your protagonists –then what’s the point of dialogue, if ‘its all good’ and equal, to begin with?…

… Acknowledge your differences with your protagonists. Acknowledge your conflict with their own one-dimensional perspective. Acknowledge the reality. And then offer up your vision… I can guarantee that it does not match up with their own. And that is because it is based on ‘conflict’ –and yours is not… You may encounter conflict trying to present this quandary, but that is only a paradox… We all know where the real conflict resides… Paradoxically, conflict must be ‘engaged’ before conflict can be transformed…

quote:

Again, I don't see the "individual" as the problem. I see 'some' of the 'views' (beliefs & opinions) these individuals have, which drive them to act in the way they do, as the actual problem.

… I cannot really imagine that there are too many people who truly do see all this as a problem with ‘individuals’ per se, although ‘some’ individuals can be bigger problems than other individuals… I believe that most thinking people see our problems in the aggregate, and not merely the result of a few very powerful individuals with a great deal of influence… Although there are exceptions…

quote:

So now that I've told you 'how it seems to me', regarding this "mining about", what do you think the solution is?

… the 'good and evil' metaphor…

quote:

One of the most excellent topics for dialogue exploration

… I thought so…

Lawrence, does someone who has common sense try to explain it? I'm not saying I do or I don't. As I sit here and think about it, common sense tells me that someone who has it doesn't need an explanation and someone who doesn't have it wouldn't understand it. I think that's common sense.

I'd imagine that, for each person, common sense is whatever fits in with their world view.

Hello Lawrence -

Re: But it is not the 'liberal' that we need to convince......

**At this point I'd like to suggest: Let's leave this 'open'. Let's look first, with whoever may be interested. This relates to the suggested dialogue guideline of "Dialogue starts from a willingness to be tentative about what you know."

What happens when we (commonly) don't do this is that the exploration tends to dead-lock or go nowhere. Instead of that we can simply acknowledge: Okay you have one view, I have another, let's hold these loosely and explore and examine openly what's actually going on, as best we can determine. This way the beliefs & opinions don't prevent a deeper exploration.


Re: To be fair, I would not even personally 'try' and convince such die-hard and hate-filled partisans in the first place.

**And I'd suggest that trying to do so would usually be a collossal waste of energy. People who see no reason to hold their views 'tentatively' aren't interested in a genuine exploration.


Re: I think a very strong argument 'still' needs to be made, for these pragmatic people that will help sooth their intellect....

**I have two comments: One, there's no reason why both dialogue and working on stronger arguments can't both be done, and two, such stronger arguments are what often come out of the greater clarity that often occurs as a result of exploring an issue together cooperatively.


Re: "It looks like you have a fever," the doctor then declares - that's the problem...

**That's still a symptom, isn't it? It's a problem from one point of view, but the real problem is that something's out of balance in the organism. This probably isn't the best example to use because the disorder, I suggest, is psychological. Look at 'stress'. What is it? It's a result of how we think. Stress isn't the problem, per se, it's the thinking that's creating the stress.

It's not a false dichotomy, I suggest. If you treat stress with drugs, you're treating the symptoms and ignoring the root cause, which is related to the nature of our thinking. It's not a false dichotomy to say drugs treat the symptoms, not the root problem.


Re: I see your approach, or perspective, as no less of a ping pong game.......

**I'll be the first to admit that I've been largely unsuccessful at communicating the nature and value of cooperative dialogue. As a result of that failure (along with the cultural debate preference), we haven't really, to my observation, more than briefly ever stepped out of the ping pong game. Just look at how many times I've stated that this form of dialogue is not about 'convincing' anyone of anyone else's beliefs, yet that's precisely the way you just described it. Clearly I haven't been able to effectively convey its true nature. So it would be hard to accurately evaluate the approach I'm suggesting by what's occured here so far.

The point of having a dialogue with protagonists is to facilitate a deeper learning about some aspect of life, along with reaching a better understanding of each others perspectives. It also facilitates community & friendship, in addition to the increased clarity it facilitates.


Re: We all know where the conflict resides

**I would question that. I see most all human conflict as the result of 'two or more' conflicting beliefs. And what appears to enable this conflict is 'confusing ideas for the actuality', regardless of whether they are Liberal or Conservative beliefs. From my perspective, the Liberal views (not all liberal views or all liberal people's views) tend to be 'broader-based', as opposed to having a 'narrow perspective'. But the conflict happens because both sides 'think' their 'ideas' are one and the same as 'the whole truth'. And that's where I see the problem, not whose idea is slightly more accurate?

Regards - Howard

Hi Howard,

Could you possibly choose a smaller avatar? Unfortunately this software does not cope very with large ones. What it does is allocate enough space for the full size, then shrinks it down to 48 x 48 pixels. The text moves up to fill the space, but the browser is left pointing where it was before the picture was shrunk; often looking at blank space at the bottom of the page.

Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:
Lawrence, does someone who has common sense try to explain it?

... Hehehe, around these parts, we try and explain 'everything' now don't we?... And if we can't explain it -it only makes us want to try even harder, to explain it...

... Personally, I find it very... significant, and appropriate, that we have finally touched upon something that has no easy answers -or definitions...

... This -I believe- is the nature of reality itself... Not just the simple fact that some things (or non-things) can be extremely difficult to 'quantify' -but also, the simple fact that despite this obvious difficulty- we still try, regardless...
... I see 'both' the liberal 'inner-directed' thrust, as well as the conservative 'outer-directed' one, as well...

... The world that we share and inhabit, not only seems to be far, far richer than most of us 'do' imagine, but it also seems to be far, far richer than most of us 'can' imagine... (this has all been said once or twice before, no? ) And yet most of our explanations for a world of such deep complexity, is couched in such simple metaphors, and quick sound bites, that renders all this immense diversity in such simple and easy to comprehend storylines, that all but sterilizes the splendor of it all... Much like the political debate that ties to pass for wisdom around this here planet of ours...

... Look at -or imagine- the immense, and magnificently complex physical, biological, and even subjective nature of the inter-workings of something as tiny as the 'gnat'... Do we ponder its complexity the way we 'occasionally' ponder the great immensity of the Universe itself, as we stare out in the heavens on a clear, starry night?... I'm guessing not...

... How much 'more' complex than, is the physical, biological, and subjective nature of the entity that is the 'human?'... We so casually 'slap' the wonder that is the human, with no more consideration than we swat the highly engineered gnat, whose own motivation for 'getting in our face' is most likely far more complex than our contemporary storylines will even allow us to project...

... So, we have finally come upon a human concept that affords us no easy answers, heh?... Hehehe... Good... Welcome to my world...

... And let me tell you, it is very difficult -to say the least- to try and come up with 'easy answers' that simultaneously, 'discounts' the prescription that 'life is filled with easy answers'... Hehehe, very difficult indeed...

quote:

I'm not saying I do or I don't. As I sit here and think about it, common sense tells me that someone who has it doesn't need an explanation and someone who doesn't have it wouldn't understand it. I think that's common sense.

... I don't want to insult you there Don, but that explanation of yours sounds almost like something 'I' would say... :-) A little more ethereal, and little less 'to the point'...

... I would venture to guess that if we all took the same, deliberative approach to most other areas of consideration that we have all been so quick to pronounce definitive answers on, that we would all find ourselves just as much 'at a loss for words' as we find ourselves now, with this most unique concept we have all come to call 'common sense'...

quote:

Sue N:
I'd imagine that, for each person, common sense is whatever fits in with their world view.

... I agree... I would also add to that by suggesting that as long as we have two seemingly diametrically opposed camps, who can only seem to experience/perceive reality in one of two different ways –as either liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, objective or subjective, analytical or intuitive- than we will ‘always’ have two diametrically opposed versions of what we all believe –or intuit- to be the very same concept, that we are all so sure we must agree upon…

... Howard, I'm still 'intuiting' your most recent comments...

quote:

.. I agree... I would also add to that by suggesting that as long as we have two seemingly diametrically opposed camps, who can only seem to experience/perceive reality in one of two different ways –as either liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, objective or subjective, analytical or intuitive- than we will ‘always’ have two diametrically opposed versions of what we all believe –or intuit- to be the very same concept, that we are all so sure we must agree upon…

And then watch it get really frighteningly insane to imagine, as we move out of your binary model into my multi dimensional, contextualized continuum model, moving dynamically like a kaleidoscope.

quote:

Originally posted by Ren:

my multi dimensional, contextualized continuum model, moving dynamically like a kaleidoscope.

... Well, I hope you have every intention of 'sharing' your multi-dimensional continuum,' and not keeping it all to yourself...

... Although you can go ahead and keep the 'icepick in the back' part of your multi-dimensional continuum... thank you very much...

quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence:


... Well, I hope you have every intention of 'sharing' your multi-dimensional continuum,' and not keeping it all to yourself...

... Although you can go ahead and keep the 'icepick in the back' part of your multi-dimensional continuum... thank you very much...

I don't know if I can. I just know it ain't simple.

The ice pick's gone, thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Ren:

quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence:


... Well, I hope you have every intention of 'sharing' your multi-dimensional continuum,' and not keeping it all to yourself...

... Although you can go ahead and keep the 'icepick in the back' part of your multi-dimensional continuum... thank you very much...

I don't know if I can. I just know it ain't simple.

... Well...

quote:

... And let me tell you, it is very difficult -to say the least- to try and come up with 'easy answers' that simultaneously, 'discounts' the prescription that 'life is filled with easy answers'... Hehehe, very difficult indeed...

... I can certainly agree there...

quote:

The ice pick's gone, thank you.

... glad to hear it...

How about something that considers the "vertigo of imagination" for starters?

SuperModels: Maps from the Imagination Machine

quote:

consider that what all the artists in SuperModels
have in common is precisely a mapping of the imaginary, a
poignant articulation of exactly that space where reality and
fantasy no longer reside in contradiction. Instead, here we find
the vast expanse of the imaginary opening up, erupting into visual
and narrative forms, rendered with much more detail than reality
could ever hope to contain.

quote:

Consider Steven Rayner’s narrative piece “Hovering,” which
is much more than a mere illustration of interpretive possibility.
Instead it is perhaps the most explicit example of a vertigo of the
real, and its partner in the vertigo of the imaginary. And in this
spirit, read “Hovering” as a vertigo of the inverse sort – not the
dizzying fear of heights one encounters in looking down, but the
dizziness of possibilities one encounters in acknowledging the
reality of the imagination. Here the multiplicity of maps, from train
tracks to freeways to the migration paths of deer and coyotes,
coalesce and interweave. And the resultant narrative texture is
neither purely industrial nor purely natural, but a strange fusion
of the two, set to its own uniquely referential soundtrack. I love
you for what you are not. Not, in other words, real. Much more
poignant is the love of fictions and imaginings, stories that fade
like the city in Rayner’s rear-view mirror, but which are never more
present than when they are gone.