From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Sep 25 2002 - 18:54:29 MDT
Thanks Jeff for providing exactly the sort of discussion
I was after. I want a discussion that does not constantly
include denunciations of the other side, but, as I've
explained, seeks to find mutually agreed upon reasons
*why* each side believes as it does, and also encompasses
reflections on the nature of belief.
You write
> [Lee wrote]
>> In fact, the "going meta" that I have tried to do
>> is what, perhaps, a psychiatrist called in by the
>> divorce court would be trying to do.
>> It's hardly his place to take sides, or even to
>> examine particular issues of dispute, but rather
>> to understand and explain how each party got
>> into their position.
> These two---dispassionate analysis,--or a mutual
> and cooperative attempt ! at it--, and 'psychiatric'
> analysis carried on simultaneously--particularly
> where one person takes the role of the 'analyst'--,
> seems problematic.
Hmm. I thought that they were the same thing.
> Because he who assumes the role of analyst, may
> (condescendingly?) arrogate to himself a power
> advantage: the superior-doctor vs the mentally/
> emotionally-challenged patient. This violates
> the spirit of mutualism/cooperation crucial to
> dispassionate discourse, breeds suspicion,
> transforms the voluntary suppression of emotion-
> driven advocacy into a kind of self-betrayal,
> and provokes the resumption of a now
> perniciously covert combativeness.
I *totally* agree. Our mutual efforts to analyze
what are the roots of our ideological conflicts
must *never* assume any kind of "superior" attitude
or position. Won't that be *more* difficult for
you than for me, since you believe that the facts
are all on your side? ;-)
> It's difficult enough for those with conflicting
> meme sets even to achieve the trust required for
> constructive/cooperative discourse.
Yes. But beyond just you and me, several others
and I *have* achieved that trust. But maybe all
it takes is a cessation of name-calling, an
admission of the symmetries in many ways between
left and right, and an attitude of respect.
>> Now, while trying to carry on *that* analysis, I
>> intend at the same time---but probably not in the
>> same posts---to resume my other character as one
>> of the disputants.
> If one changes the word "disputant", above, to
> "fellow searcher after the truth, but one with
> a contrasting perspective", then I'm okay with it.
Well, all right. But honestly, I think that everyone
here is an honest seeker of the truth. Every liberal
really is a liberal, and likewise for conservative.
Many have given up, of course, and suppose their
opposite numbers to be practically the spawn of Satan.
Others simply *cannot* resist throwing partisan barbs
whenever they begin to discuss almost anything with
their opposite numbers.
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?
Iff the answer is no, then I am succeeding in this
post so far.
> But I have no use for dispute/debate/combative
> advocacy. These are about winning/ego
> gratification/emotionally-prejudiced, -driven,
> and -rewarded meme-set defense.
All right. I usually just acknowledge that both
sides have deep ideological motives, and that they
*act* like adversaries. I'll try to avoid that
language for you, but I'm sure that it will leak
out, because that's how I see it.
> 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. 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.
> I don't think it's anywhere near as hard as
> you make ! it out to be. It's about trust
> and agreement on and adherence to the rules
> going in. The main difficulty is the subversive
> participation of individuals who refuse to follow
> the rules, and the corruption of discourse--and
> trust--that results from the failure to censure
> or exclude them.
Hmm. I guess I'm a dualist and you're not? I mean,
I think of myself being in meta-mode, where the
object is to try to understand the differing values
or histories that led to such unquenchable ideological
divides, and the normal-mode, where I try to articulate
why the XXXXXX have values not in accord with best
progress and acceptance of reality. Whereas you're
always in the same truth-seeking mode?
>> I hasten to point out, however, that this
>> "cooperation" has its limits, and one will
>> still every so often say out of sheer
>> desperation, "but HOW can anyone believe
>> *that* without being deranged!?" All that
>> is asked is that that be a rhetorical
>> question, and everyone understand that
>> their adversaries are neither stupid,
>> nor criminal, nor more blind, nor of
>> lower morality, nor less educated than
>> one. Is that really so much to ask?
> I disagree with the premise and the conclusion.
What premise? What conclusion?
> The truth is out there.
Yes.
> If you cooperate to seek it, and find it, and
> then one party, seeing (feeling/fearing/believing)
> that the truth speaks against his/her interest,
> rejects the truth in favor of self-interest...
> then that party is 'wrong'.
But Jeff, wouldn't you agree that there are many
people on both sides to whom that applies?
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.)
Have you or have you not experienced the pain of
finding out that you were *wrong* about some
historical incident? I have. Or does it so
happen that you've been lucky enough to have
always been right and never experienced this?
> I would suggest that this is why many people
> 'instinctively' resist looking for the truth,
> why seeking and acknowledging the truth is so
> difficult.... People will refuse the truth
> or deny it, before they will say...
That's true. But do you think this explains
you, or explains me? Be honest, now: ;-)
no insult intended: would you say that *one*
side of the political debates is *far* more
resistant to truth?
> Seeing this protection of one's meme set/tribal
> identity certification from conflicting memes,
> truthful or otherwise, as instinctive/primitive
> might provide insight into an otherwise "totally
> baffling feature of the human operating system".
Yes.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:17 MST