From: Ross A. Finlayson (extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 01:42:35 MDT
On Sunday, September 15, 2002, at 10:29 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Damien writes
>
>> At 08:10 PM 9/15/02 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>> Is it *impossible* to unearth the unarticulated
>>> assumptions that underlie each position?
>>
>> It's pretty hard to get people with strong opinions even to
>> *listen* to the case built from different perspectives.
>
> But, strange as it may seem, I *do* understand why
> people often *cannot* listen to the case built from
> a different perspective. Because the case invariably
> rests (so it seems to me) on deeper assumptions not
> stated that appall the reader. I, for example, find
> everything completely wrong from each leading sentence
> of each paragraph of some documents or narratives, and
> it just doesn't make any sense to try to "understand" it.
>
> I am truly amazed that you can do it, if that's so.
>
It sounds like you didn't participate in forensics, debate. In debate,
competitive speaking, there's an issue and in various rounds you have to
argue either side.
For example, in a round one side might argue for the resolution, and the
other side argues against the resolution or more particularly against
the proponents' presentation of the resolution.
I think people can readily see the other side of the argument, they just
don't hold those views. Some can't, won't or don't, they readily lose
debate rounds.
Life isn't a debate round.
>> candidly marxist; I personally do not subscribe to Franklin's
>> ideology, but
>> I find his detailed analysis quite thrillingly and disturbingly
>> effective.
>
> Perhaps your differences with him occur at a high enough level
> that you can either "suspend disbelief" or find your ideological
> differences irrelevant? (Lee groping for a canny explanation,
> recoiling from the uncanny.)
>
>> Yet I have the feeling that dedicated and clever Heinlein
>> enthusiasts such as James Gifford *simply could not bear
>> to read* Franklin, even if their eyes tracked all the words.
>
> Possibly. This effect, of pronounced revulsion, occurs
> IMO when one must read a dispassionate account of facts
> that do not support one's position, or that embarrass
> one or one's allies. So possibly Gifford not only
> couldn't understand Franklin, but might in addition
> (and quite separately) be too repulsed to accomodate
> the unwelcome insights.
>
>> Now maybe this is appropriate and understandable, given certain
>> premises.
>> Would anyone bother to read a long denunciation of Martin Luther King's
>> writings (since that's all it would be, surely) by the Grand Imperial
>> Wizard of the KKK?
>
> A perfect example. A conservative might be able to wade
> through such, even without being a racist, in just the
> same way that you are able to read Franklin without being
> a Marxist. In particular, one cannot entirely discount
> the possibility of some brilliant person in the KKK making
> trenchent criticism of MLK just the way that Franklin
> perhaps criticises RAH.
>
>> Still, there are surprising findings in Franklin's study
>> that help account for Heinlein's impact and also his limitations, and
>> they
>> are not going to be unearthed soon by a critic more sympathetic to RAH.
>> Does it help to know that Franklin's own ideological position is
>> radically
>> leftist? Of course, and luckily he makes this blazingly apparent in
>> every
>> sentence. It is an *objective* fact of his reading position.
>
> Then I submit that you are not entirely uncomfortable with
> his ideology. If you were, I submit, then this would be
> impossible for you. Every sentence indeed!
>
A wide raft of issues tend to be held together, but it's oversimplistic
to assume they even generally do. For example, a "true" Republican is
against big government, where a "right wing warmonger" is for big
defense, those are contradictory. I think our country needs more
parties. Among the two parties, an issue is polarized as either
in-party or not, or "bipartisan"-ly supported or not.
In logic, often, a predicate is either "true" or "false", P or "not P",
it's called the law of the excluded middle. In polemic politics the
middle is often excluded. There are various logics that do not require
that, multi-valued, many-valued, or multivalent logics.
That's a problem with assigning one of a pair of antonyms to the left
and the other to the right, the pair itself might be leftist or rightist.
>> I wonder, though, how many people on this list can observe
>> their own axe-grindings with equal candor?
>
A lot of times people argue publicly for something to get tacit and
explicit agreement from what they see as respected or respectable
peers. They also argue as they do because they feel that way, often for
the gratification of being agreeable to their peers.
I think a lot of the time the quieter people are less polemic and more
moderate, yet set once convinced. Then again, that's another perhaps
overbroad generalization. They're very angry to be fooled.
> I wish that you would elaborate on this point. (See below.)
> First, though, we should assure others (if you agree) that
> you and I are not hypocrites: even though we often have our
> own axe to grind (and do so with relish), we are capable of,
> as you say "observing" that this is what we are doing.
>
> Specifically, what exactly does it mean to "observe one's
> own axe-grinding"? You could mean "bias", but maybe you
> mean only "viewpoint", for example. Or perhaps you have
> something else in mind.
>
Some people argue as they do for self-righteousness' sake, that sense of
self-righteousness is much based upon their peers, and more particularly
their respected peers.
A lot of people respect carrots and sticks. Some don't. Many people
value diverse things quite differently. Cash can buy many things.
>> Is this comment at all relevant to your point, Lee?
>
> You've gotten quite warm! Thanks. But is there a
> clear, numbered list in your mind as to *Why*? Did
> you like my four or so reasons? Or did you find them,
> alas, only reflective of my situation on the political
> spectrum? (On one of them, I *tried* to be as critical
> of the way rightists dismiss leftists' views, but I
> would have had to do more re-writing to get there.
> But one can see that I did try.)
>
> Lee
>
If you can't see the opposing viewpoint, then, you don't know your own
viewpoint. Some viewpoints are more easily justifiable than others
according to "generally accepted" standards of ethics and morals.
Human psychology in terms of opinion- and decision-making is not so
difficult to understand.
The mob psychology is the amalgam of many person's psychologies, and
they're interrelated. The mob's psyhology affects the individual, and
the individual's psychology affects the mob. I was reading this Asimov
anthology, he says mob psychology is called ochlology. Then again,
Asimov invented psychohistory, or perhaps novelized it. Heh,
ochlology: google-whack.
Think of these words and how they apply: in, out. Are you in or out?
People often highly value belonging, and their peers often influence
their opinions/beliefs. Heh, letters. It's kind of qabalic, the
gematria, or alliteratively peer pressure.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Twenty-six letters. Anyways...
There might be possible various strengths of a belief: core principle,
belief, thought, opinion, whim. Various synonyms of the word belief
imply varying dearness to the heart, or absolute conviction.
One concept in the development of "artificial intelligence" with
human-like decision and opinion making incorporates a model of beliefs,
desires, and motivations, where those three interact.
People want to be right. They'll accept having been wrong, often, in
being right.
Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:04 MST