From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Oct 01 2002 - 02:38:46 MDT
Jeff writes
> I guess I just wasn't clear.. I was attempting to distinguish between, on the one
> hand, the "dispassionate analysis" of an issue, ie the discussion of an issue, and
> on the other hand, the 'psychiatric' analysis carried on simultaneously, of one or
> both of the parties involved in the discussion.
Now that distinction I do understand. I think that what
you are aiming for is what I usually take for granted,
namely, a civilized discussion of an issue where both
sides conduct themselves courteously and with respect,
and in which each side is trying as articulately as
possible to write persuasively of what they feel or
reason to be the case, and try to see exactly where
the other party is going wrong.
Now one might criticize the paragraph I've just
written as depicting the parties as too closed-
minded. But if I'm right that actual ideological
differences lie very deep indeed, then this is the
most that can be hoped for while discussing *issues*.
That is, whether it's *Iraq* or *profiling*, the
best that can be hoped for are interesting discussions
that permit each party to raise objections to the
other's vision and to articulate their own position.
The "meta" on the other hand that *I* was getting at
is rising above ideological differences *entirely*.
In this kind of investigation, one strives to have
one's writing or points to be completely independent
of one's ideology. Operationally: if it can be seen
what your allegiance is from what you have written,
then you have failed.
Observe that no one could tell from what we have written
above what are our positions on the political spectrum.
In *this* meta mode, one attempts to objectively
explain why rightists are to the right and leftists
to the left, that is, what psychology or values
at root distinguish them.
> Yes, respect and civility, but... after may years at
> this (watching the world), and much hesitation and
> 'benefit of the doubt', I have come to the conclusion
> that, despite the "symmetries in many ways", there
> are some fundamental 'asymmetries'.
Great! I've always looked for them, but never have
actually found them for sure.
> Person X, an individual of good faith, says two and
> two are three. Person Y, an individual of good faith,
> says two and two are five. You got symmetry. Person
> Z, an individual of good faith, says two and two is
> four. Now you have asymmetry. And making the situation
> more difficult is the fact that, because persons X and Y
> are persons of good faith, it is clear that, antecedent
> to their 'mathematical' errors is a corruption of their
> thought processes, a corruption of which they are
> unaware. Sometimes differences are "diversity", and
> sometimes they're just plain wrong.
But I believe your analogy badly flawed. Were our
differences mathematical, or even scientific, then
time would greatly serve to show one side, as you
so delicately put it, *wrong*.
Do you have any good examples where history has
indubitably concluded that one side was *right*
and the other *wrong* in any intensely ideological
debate? Even today it is hardly decided who was
right in the partisan battles of ancient Athens.
I accuse you of thinking that your side of the
political spectrum is right in the same way that
Darwin turned out to be right. Whereas I think,
quite on the contrary, that my side of the political
spectrum is *right* only to the extent that I
approve of certain values (e.g. "equality" vs.
"total wealth production", or vice-versa).
(To amplify on my last example, some people hold
equality of distribution to be much more an important
factor in modern economies than other people. The
latter are more willing than the former to sacrifice
more equal distributions for the sake of greater
growth, etc.)
> Right up to the point where they encounter a truth that they
> just can't stomach. If one works hard to get past that point,
> then he/she gets the "honest seeker of truth" merit badge.
> Not all do.
Oh yes, indeed. Some people certainly have stronger
stomachs than others, and some of us make a greater
effort than others to work unpleasant truths into our
belief systems. One only needs to consult an objective
list of holocausts like the ones you published, to see
that everything unpleasant to one's position on the
political spectrum cannot be written off as mere work
of those rascally conservatives (liberals).
>> QUICK CHECK: WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR ANY MARTIAN,
>> HOWEVER WISE, TO TELL WHETHER THE ABOVE WAS WRITTEN
>> BY SOMEONE FROM THE LEFT OR FROM THE RIGHT?
> Even if the martian was sophisticated enough to tell
> the difference between right and left, I think it
> would be a tough call. Even the devil can quote
> scripture? ;-)
I don't quite get your joke. I guess that by your
"devil" you mean one of those unfortunates who
doesn't have any independent yearning for the truth
and whose beliefs cannot be falsified by more data?
So one of those people you keep complaining about
could have written everything that I wrote before?
Yes, but so what?
>>> Regard for truth is demoted to 'how can it help
>>> me win', which is contempt for truth.
>> Again, I don't see anyone here who has contempt for
>> the truth.
> "...anyone here..."? I have seen people 'here' refuse
> the truth.
You mean because they refuse to see the light as
propounded by your own personal political god?
If not that, then what other sort of truth did
you see people resist? Mind you, I can't make
any sense of what you're saying unless you mean
that they just point blank rejected a fact that
had been shown to obtain from a credible source.
>> But yes, I admit that their minds work
>> in such a way that they want to win. I want to win.
>> I suspect that XXXXX are wrong, and that my side is
>> right, but I immediately qualify that by saying it's
>> because we have differing *values*. That's the
>> hypothesis anyway.
> The *values* qualification is an easy out. Whoever
> is wrong gets to save face. Screw that. I don't
> want to be cruel, but he who "can't handle the truth"
> should lurk in silent safety.
I understand how resort to "values" can be a face
saving argument. As far back as when I was ten
years old I tried to save the face of a friend
who couldn't keep the rhythm in our little clarinet
duet. As we kept failing, I informed his mother
that "it is almost impossible for us to really
do it exactly together", though now, of course,
I realize that I wasn't fooling her a bit in all
probability.
But this is *not* like that. Jeff, do you suddenly
think that it's going to be REVEALED whether the
conservatives or the progressives were *right*,
and all on the losing side who are honest will
suddenly confess their errors?
> Perhaps I'm being obtuse, or contentious, but I just
> didn't like being led to the [your] "understanding"...
> It is not the case that "their adversaries are neither
> stupid, nor criminal, nor more blind, nor of lower
> morality, nor less educated than one."
> People are what they are and I'll take it from there.
Well, throw all those, the blind, or stupid, or less
educated, or immoral out of the equation for a minute.
Are any remaining on that side of the political spectrum
you oppose?
>> Moreover, how do you know that you haven't already
>> done that? How do you know that your loyalty to
>> decades of ideological stances has filtered out
>> that which goes against your deepest beliefs and
>> has misled you in some ways? (These remarks apply
>> to me too, of course.)
> Ahhh. That's the great question. I'll keep
> watching myself. You can help.
Yes, but my point is that one *can't* know that.
You can *try* to watch yourself, of course, but
the best that you can ever do is face inconsistencies
in your own belief system and rectify them. And
that can always be done, else all the liberals
(conservatives) would long ago have gone extinct,
just as the Ptolemaicists have.
> In my youth I was wrong about almost everything
> historic or ideological.
But all you can mean by that, if we are speaking
objectively, is that the *you* of then disagrees
with the *you* of now. You *can't* know that
given another fifty years you won't change sides
again!
> If I was lucky, it was in somehow not being so
> desperately attached to the crap or so tormented
> by the idea of being wrong, that I couldn't
> discard it. To this day I keep finding bits
> and pieces of hogwash that need to be tossed
> away and the little synaptic vesicle in which
> they festered sanitized.
Well, good for you. I also feel myself adrift
politically, though moving very slowly. Unlike
you, however, I don't find little *bits* constantly
that need to be purged. An interesting difference.
> I suppose though, that you were prompting for a
> collegial "we're both stalwart fellows, huzzah!"
> Fine by me (flashes stalwart fellow secret hand signal).
> Be honest, now: ;-)
Well, yes, I did expect that you would agree that
we are closer to showing (at least on some occasions)
a more sincere desire to find the truth than some
on this list.
>> no insult intended: would you say that *one*
>> side of the political debates is *far* more
>> resistant to truth?
> The established orthodoxy is almost always fiercely
> resistant to change. For the obvious reason that,
> if you're king of the hill, change can only mean
> heading off downhill. Since truth is an essential
> tool for all, keeping it from your adversaries is
> an effective way of keeping yourself in power.
I think that you are dodging the question. Yes, we
know how entrenched administrations in power in
Washington (or in the Kremlin) can do amazing
ideological gymnastics when it suits them. I meant
by "side" left or right. Do you think that one
side is *far* more resistant to truth?
> So, yes, one side is far more resistant to the truth.
You do mean one of (left, right) I take it?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:22 MST