From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 20:25:34 MDT
TT (or J.) writes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of TT
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 6:36 AM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Re: *Why* People Won\'t Discuss Differences Objectively
>
> [Harvey writes]
>> [... If we try to discuss these root assumptions, we find that we don't even
>> agree on what they are. Then we disagree and argue. I think this happens all
>> the time on this list and leads to the inevitable heated discussions. We can
>> talk fine in the abstract about \"great things in the future.\" But when we
>> get to root assumptions, we have various viewpoints and cannot agree on the
>> basic underpinnings of reality... ]
>
> This would seem to be a very important issue. If the base assumptions of
> each party were not exposed prior to communication, then it would, almost
> inevitably result in miscommunication, and no progress can be made. This
> is particularly the case with cross cultural and polarised group interfaces.
Yes, though exposing such prior "base" assumptions is far easier
said than done.
> If the aim is to communicate effectively, should we not bring to the open our
> basic assumptions regarding the subject being contemplated? If the answer is
> 'yes', then how do we know we have really exposed those assumptions, and that
> there are not even deeper assumptions buried somewhere in our Psyche? Is it
> possible to 'look around ones own corner' if one wanted too?
Exactly.
> Personally I have a hard time bringing my assumptions to the surface...
Quite right. That's perhaps the most important role a discussion partner
(or philosophical adversary) can play. They ought to be able to help us
see what our assumptions appear to be, mainly because those people don't
*share* our assumptions, and so can detect what is "wrong".
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:31 MST