Hi Judith and John M.
May I intervene in this discussion, which seems to have ended with John
Mike's unnecessary retirement?
I would like to express a sentiment that I have felt for a long time
regarding these discussions (multiple lists, not just this one).
They are a mixed blessing to me. On the one hand it is great to discuss
ideas with others thinking about the same subjects.
But on the other hand, there is always this barrier we all erect around our
ideas and ways of expressing them.
I have been as much a victim of this as a perpetrator of it, so it is a
human weakness (assuming I am counted among the human and am typical in
this regard).
We have to ask first and foremost why we converse at all, I mean what is
the goal? The desired outcome?
Here's some possibilities:
1. our individual learning, regardless of what others get out of it
2. increase collective understanding
3. seek consensus, i.e., agreement whether it is correct or not
4. get an right answer to a question from others
5. vent frustrations and repressed desires to "be heard"
6. to enlighten others
7. to represent some legacy (person or theory)
8. just to "win" at something with words
9. to have fun
10. to integrate ideas and build on them
11. to discover our own thoughts through the exercise of expressing them
12. to get peer review of our own thoughts
We all can probably add more reasons, but each of these requires a group,
so we're here. And each requires that we express our ideas at some point
(except if one's purpose is just to listen). The problem with expressing
ideas to a group was identified by the famous Murphy (was he a real
person?) who said: "It is impossible to make anything fool proof, because
fools are so ingenious."
No matter what we say or how we say it, someone will be able to find an
objection. From that point on we talk about the objection rather than the
original idea. If that goes on long enough someone might feel offended.
Then we talk about the offense or perception of it. Then, ultimately, we
get to messages like this asking what we're really trying to accomplish.
I think the goal should be to stick to original ideas.
To do that, we have to all be disciplined enough to not defend our
particular vocabulary, or our particular source of information. An idea,
first expressed, requires reflection. One has to look at it from many
angles before reacting. There are 1000's of ways to misinterpret it and
only one or a few ways to understand it as it was meant. Most of us don't
express ideas with 1000 meanings intentionally.
So it is easy to say "no" to say "I disagree" or say "that's not my
view" - so what? Is that the point? Or is the point to find a way to
understand?
Here's a test in understanding something that at first seems wrong: In my
increasing post-middle age I have come to the idea that there are no wrong
statements (with one exception). We use words as symbols for things we have
experienced and are experiencing, and there are no wrong experiences. So
how can the symbol for something true be called false? Its like saying if
the word "ouch" or the word "damn" is the right one when someone gets hurt.
The main point is the experience, and we can agree on the words only after
we've agreed on the experiences we're describing.
Sounds crazy, right? But think of it this way. Right and wrong are defined
entirely by context. We hear the statement but not the context. So we can
declare it wrong. But there is another choice. Instead of saying "no" we
can do the hard work, and ask more about the context - try to find the way
in which we can say "yes."
This is a different kind of learning than most are used to. Instead of
mechanically labeling syntactic statements as "right" and "wrong", one is
using them to evaluate contexts in which they have meaning. Doing this will
always result in the feeling of doing something meaningful, because it is
literally working with the meanings, not the structures. Some contexts will
turn out to be very limited and not much use for anything else. But still
one can agree with the statement and then explore (together) how far it
gets us. This is science at its absolute best, I think. Because the real
insights come from exploring a paradigm and finding which statements are
correct or incorrect in which paradigm.
My suggestion: Think first how we can agree. Think last, or not at all, how
we can disagree. No one's honor will be soiled by this.
John K.
PS I hope John M. does not leave the list. His insights are extremely
valuable and an integral part of this discussion.