From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Nov 03 2005 - 18:21:08 GMT
Hi there, Rebecca --
> I'm always up for a challenge and if you really
> got me then there must be something to it.
> For me, it's how one reacts to the challenge that's
> important. If you read something and think 'wow,
> I'd like to throttle that guy' you'd better step back
> and ask yourself _why_? (apparently my favourite
> question). For me, it's how one reacts to the
> challenge that's important.
I think there is a lot of truth in this admonition.
All of us are prone to the "indignity" of seeing someone else's ideas
countermanding our own. And all of us could benefit by opening our minds to
concepts which seem foreign to our way of thinking but have 'a ring of
truth' to them with which we may not be prepared to cope. I think this is
actually how we learn from the dialogue and debates that go on here.
Asking "why?" is the first step toward intellectual enlightenment. If the
response is a plausible one, then applying Occam's razor may sharpen the
respondent's proposition, forcing him to define his reasoning in the context
of previously held assumptions. In this way, new ideas can be clarified for
the greater edification of the inquirer and the respondent alike.
Unfortunately -- and I'm as guilty as everyone else -- we too often succumb
to our psycho-emotional defenses in such discussions, characterizing our
adversary as a radical, ignoramus, or something worse. Could we muster the
wisdom to step back for a moment and realize that the idea put forth is a
reflection of that person's perspective -- which, after all, is no more or
less informed than our own -- we might gain by the experience instead of
viewing it as a threat to our equanimity and peace of mind.
I find it particularly aggravating when my intellectual opponent resorts to
some obscure source, suggesting that until I am familiar with 'so-and-so's'
thesis, I'm not qualified to challenge his concept. To me, that's the
ultimate put down; "you are ignorant because you don't know what 'so-and-so'
said." Well, if so-and-so's statement is that significant, how is it that
my opponent can't explain it to me? It seems to me that a good idea should
stand on its own merit -- regardless of who may have 'authored' it.
No doubt some of the people we talk to are inimitable "assholes",
deliberately seeking to provoke. But there is usually a reason for the
provocation, and when we are able to clear away the antagonism, we may
discover a gem of truth behind it. I try to give everyone the benefit of my
doubt. I see that as a "test" of my antagonist's veracity. If he or she
withdraws from the challenge, it's a pretty reliable indication that the
argument is merely the exercise of someone looking for brownie points in a
verbal competition.
> Once I calm down the answer usually comes,
> and it's usually the latter. Then I reform my thoughts
> and figure out just where I was wrong, or less right.
> Maybe this is one of the joys of youth or something,
> that I'm not stuck in my ways yet. It's all relative anyhow :)
Great advice, indeed, Rebecca!
Such wise counsel should be included in the MD Charter.
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 03 2005 - 20:25:11 GMT