From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 03:35:06 MDT
Extropes,
Lee Corbin wrote:
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.
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.
> 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? ;-)
He who is right might well feel confident. He who is wrong might also feel confident, but, then he would be in error on two counts: his view of the issue and his confidence in that view.
> 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.
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'. 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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
Are not "the spawn of Satan" merely good people led far astray by an accumulation of bad information and bad reasoning skills?
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? ;-)
If 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.
And I'll avoid being a purist. I'll judge according to the substance, and till then assume that we're cooperating. And even afterward.
> 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.
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 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,
History is interesting. Humanity's role in it fascinating. And I forgive the dead. The living, however, don't get off that easy.
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?
As my contributions to the list will attest, I have my moments of whimsy. (Among other moods.)
>> 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?
Perhaps I'm being obtuse, or contentious, but I just didn't like being led to the "understanding" cited above. 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.
> 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?
Absolutely.
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.
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?
Hardly. In my youth I was wrong about almost everything historic or ideologic. If I was lucky, it was in somehow not being so desparately attached to the crap or so tormentedby 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.
> 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?
My integrity is for sale. The question is how much. I like to imagine that I am unreasonably greedy, but the truth is I'm unhappy with the lack of offers. I won't presume to speak for you. ;-)
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: ;-)
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. So, yes, one side is far more resistant to the truth.
In all fairness, however, where winning is the object, both sides consider the truth irrelevant. Inconvenient even. It's hard to come by, difficult to certify, and not nearly so precisely tailored to the needs of the ideologue as his own custom crock.
> 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
Best, Jeff Davis
"We don't see things as they are,
we see them as we are."
Anais Nin
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:19 MST