From: "the fellow who's pounding sand" To: "castles in the sky" Subject: FILLER: Well-Aged, But Still Irrevelant? I was pawing through some old files and stumbled across some charcoal from an old flamefest. Re-reading it, I thought it might be worthwhile to toss out again. Incidentally, between relatives visiting for Thanksgiving (ye gads, I had forgotten how much stress that is!) and problems at work (concerning how to review or comment on one another's work, no less:-( time for anything like thought and wrapping words around those thoughts is very limited. Maybe next week? oh, yes. Enjoy those turkeys, and remember that Benjamin Franklin wanted America to waddle with the turkeys instead of soaring with the eagles... guess that shows that even fellows that fly kites in thunderstorms make mistakes sometimes... [relevant or revelant? which one opens your eyes? punnishment intentional.] tired tink -Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 11:10:44 JST -From: Mike Barker -Subject: FILLER: Different and Better... [another ramble - some of you will recognize a theme that I keep returning to...maybe I'll get it right someday?] Somewhere in the recent flurry, there was mention of the idea that a person always considers their own notion "better" than the other person's. As usual, this was presented as some kind of natural law, inherently true. I don't think so. Perhaps it is just a background in non-euclidean math (with its incompatible but equally valid geometries!), philosophies, and so forth, but it seems quite possible to me that there would be multiple notions, eath different, without any reason to think that one is in any way "better" than others. In fact, I think we often use multiple patterns of thought - for example, while we "know" that the Earth is round and orbits the sun, for daily convenience we also talk about and use old flatland and geocentric concepts. Or we hold multiple emotions toward someone - we envy, hate, and admire someone all at the same time. And as for yesterday and tomorrow... In most areas of question or discussion, it is useful to be able to see, to comprehend, at least a few of the other possible stances and opinions that may exist. Starting from where someone else has set up their ego, it can be relatively easy to build a bridge to some of the points of view that you see. Starting where you are, then insisting the very basis of their thinking is wrong... well, that's a good way to make someone cling even harder to what they know and see, but it shows a certain lack of understanding of the very human bases of communications. Try assuming that the other person has a reasonable point of view and is saying whatever they are saying the best they can. Think about why someone might say those things you cannot agree with or understand so easily. Then think what they might say to themselves, starting from where they are, to move towards some of the points of view that you see. It isn't nearly as easy as bellowing about one's personal, limited point of view. But sometimes those differences are worth savoring. Who knows - you might even find out that the other points of view also have something of validity, of truth, of beauty to show you. Difference - you don't have to be scared of it, deny it, beat it into the ground, run from it, or otherwise ignore it. Personally, I glory in it - without it, life would be so boring. I never could figure out why one path might be considered better than another. I keep trying all the ones I can reach, and learning new things every time I turn another corner or veer across a different fork. Sometimes people on the other paths sing with me, or tell me a little about what they've seen on their path, and it sure is fun! Tell you what - if you can tell me which of the geometries is "best," then maybe I'll start to think that some ways of thinking are better than others. In the meantime, I'm just going to continue accepting difference as a good thing, and try to learn from it... Not that doing this is any "better" than other approaches, but it is a different way of looking at the sheaves of possibilities and threshing them for a few grains of truth. [no point? no conclusion? perhaps that is the point...] tink ========================================================================= -Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 18:35:03 JST -From: Mike Barker -Subject: FILLER: More Different and Better... I'm not sure if xxxxx is still around or not, but I have been thinking about this topic and thought I'd share some of that with you. [WARNING: may cause thoughts...long, too!] [take a deep breath and calmly note that I've missed the target again... incidentally, xxxxx, if you're lurking, thank you for the provocation to dredge my little well of knowledge again and try to make more lumps with the mud. Hope you take time to enjoy the results.] Some scattered suggestions or comments somewhere around an issue, I'm afraid. 1. Why Claims to Rightness, Besthood, and other States of Glory being on anyone's side frighten me... First, an observation. The notion that my ideas and ideas like mine are inherently the best, right, and correct is far too close a relative of the notion that me and like-me are the best, right, and otherwise superior. That notion, in turn, has a frightening backside resembling the notion that not-me and not-like-me are bad, wrong, and otherwise inferior. From there it is just a short stumble to discrimination, persecution, burning people in ovens, "genetic experimentation," rudeness, and other horrors that derive from separating people into two or more groups, some human like me and some not human... Notions that so easily rationalize these kinds of breakdowns in human relationships are not something which I can easily let pass. Allow me a few ranging shots... 2. Taking Stands Means I Know I'm Wrong On taking stands, I find thinking about the reasons a person takes stands rather interesting. Taking a stand, for example, implies that one is making a choice - despite the lack of complete knowledge (an impossible requirement for rationality which sharply limits its utility) and appreciating to the fullest how poor one's understanding is. In the face of uncertainty, one gambles - knowing full well that the table is rigged, the house always wins. Even knowing that the pitiful little set of alternatives that one can see is never the grand sheaf of possibilities that are truly out there, one picks a card and takes the consequences. The mule, knowing full well that there is no rational reason for it, goes ahead and charges one pile of hay. At least we can hope to have a full stomach while regretting the failure of rationality. Of course, in taking any of these rather improbably courageous stands, one needs to admit, humbly, that they are only temporary and uncertain. After all, new information, a few wrinkles in the shifting sand one has taken a stand on, that tiny cannon being brought up on the right, or even a thirst for some of the nectar pooled over on the left - many, many times, one takes a stand, for a moment, for a day, then pulls up stakes and moves somewhere else. Taking a stand doesn't mean knocking over the neighbors. It doesn't even imply anything about engaging the territorial instincts, protectiveness, possessiveness, and all the other ingrained baggage of the plains ape, although quite often such does come into play. Even the territorial ape busily protecting tribe and hunting grounds indubitably knew when the time came to change, and didn't get terribly protective of grounds that weren't worth holding when Uncle Greyhair explained about the good hunting over there. Poor rationality. Perfect knowledge may let some gods use it, but sadly we are people. Imperfect knowledge, limited sight, so we must take stands, pick one of the few possibilities we know of and try to live with our mistakes. Please understand - I do not argue that we should not take stands, make commitments, and otherwise live. A few might even say that I urge such engagement with life perhaps a bit too strongly - they would prefer to rest a bit. BUT (and I think it is an important but) I also don't think we should fool ourselves about the ground for our stands. It is a weak, shivering phantasm, temporarily hiding the great gaping holes and cracks in our knowledge. The castles we build on such ground are liable to sway and fall at any time, and I for one find it far safer to admit that. In fact, I tend to use a tent instead - putting it up for a while, rummaging around the grounds, and fleeing happily when the crust breaks, running on to find another sandy spit in the watery swamp where I can camp again. Certainly, if one feels the need to build a castle, erect one's banners and so forth, and charge forth with armor glistening when poor beggars pass near, or even at rumor of dragons... one will probably get drafted into the Crusades, and leave. It may have been lonely in the castle, with the serfs out there doing whatever serfs do, but I suppose one thought it worthwhile... Oh, and don't worry about the fair ones one has left behind, we'll protect them from windmills and other fearsome dangers... [brief scientific footnote: The history and philosophy of science suggests an interesting attitude toward "stands" - we take them in order to find holes in them! A theory is only good as far as it has been tested, and even then it is tentative, open to being toppled - and scientists are constantly looking for ways of overthrowing their own stands...or as Albert Einstein is reputed to have noted, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Somewhat humbling...] 3. A Very Short Tragedy About Stands Suppose my friend looks at the black bowl, and insists that it is green. Being a practical sort, I bash his head in so that he will stop arguing. Victory is mine! Somewhere in the celebration, I manage to knock off my rose-colored glasses. Whoops. [enough, enough, you're driving the point into the ground... but does everyone know that green objects seen through red glasses are black? they do now, I suppose...] 4. Notes Toward Communications Without Right On Your Side... xxxxx said: - Help me, then. Show me how to convey that I have looked at many - different points of view, and judged one as most accurately reflecting - the conclusions I have drawn from my observations. er - that isn't true, of course. As humans, we look at a few points of view, and jump to a conclusion vaguely related to our observations. Then we rationalize madly to assure ourselves that it was the right choice, smash the dickens out of anything that doesn't fit, and ignore plenty of observations or even the chances to experience things that don't match. Might as well admit that we're irrational, and start with some honesty between us... [homo sap - the rationalizing animal! Not that he rationates so well, but that he rationates at all, that, dear ones, is the wonder...] 5. Some suggestions for taking a stand and keeping the borders open: 1. Don't defend - if a position is good enough, it doesn't need it. 2. Don't attack - knocking off the neighbors doesn't do anything for a position... 3. Listen, understand - ask questions! Don't just criticize the understanding and position of the other - build them up, support them, and give them a chance to change their minds... 4. Admit uncertainty, lack of knowledge, edges of applicability... look for short falls, problem areas, and other messes in a position. Don't hide them. 5. If a position is secure enough to stand on, it should be solid enough to take a joke or two. Keep a sense of humor and proportion - in 200 years, very few people will remember one's last stand... 6. Be very careful of "you" - is it in reference to "you" specific or "you" general? (I often offend "you" specific when I thought I was talking about "you" generic...) 7. Generalities and abstractions are dangerous. Try to tack them down to examples, and mention the "holes" in them when one can. E.g., I often test "society" by substituting "you and I" wherever it has been used - and discover what nonsense I am spouting... 8. Always consider the person behind the words. Think about the person behind the stance, and give them a chance. 9. Acknowledge the other's point(s) - don't claim them as one's own, don't deride them, and if they make a good point, admit it! 10. Go slow - you may be asking someone to change. That's hard. Explain how and why you changed - what benefits, features, functions did you find? What does holding this position do for you? If by any chance during a discussion you change your position, admit it. Thank the other people for helping you, and start looking around at the new holding. 6. A Skeleton of An Open Reply 1. Describe both (or all) sides/positions in a friendly way 2. Ask for help in reconciling 3. Discuss alternatives 4. Identify plusses and minusses that you can see for all positions 5. Admit lack of certainty, knowledge, differences in usefulness, and other limitations in your preferred position 6. Discuss why you still prefer this position 7. Ask for discussion, information, help... 7. What is an idea? (epistemology in a nutshell? on WRITERS?) I think there are people who believe that ideas, positions, patterns of thought have some kind of external existence, outside of people. Something like old Plato's "ideals" - with the local notions being near or far from that objective "rightness" that hangs out somewhere in the world of the "ideals"? I start from a very different point of view - I see patterns of thought as internal, maps imposed on the external reality, simplifications from that vaster existence. Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in defending one when there are so many other useful and interesting ways of straining that reality. I'm happy to support (or critique!) different patterns of thought, but I certainly don't claim that one is so impressive as to blind me to the truths of others. And when I face a battery of unknown opinions, there's probably a flashbulb out there waiting to blind me if I'm silly enough to claim some one pattern of thought is automatically superior - for the trivial reason that I am holding it! 8. In Summary (Wintery, Flowery, or other scattered seasons of the mind...) Taking a stand is an admission and a statement that I do NOT have the information, I am NOT sure, I am merely saying this is where I am at present. I haven't looked at everything - ain't got enough time or eyes for that. I don't know what's "right" - figuring out what's right is not possible this side of the grave. Instead, without any surety, in the face of uncertainty and lack of support - I take my stand here, I can do no other. And when I am wrong... I move. Not surprising. philos sophist... tink [note: I plead ignorance as to whether or not one can figure out what's right on the other side of the grave. I'm in no hurry to find out, either.] =========================================================================