At 9:11 PM -0400 31/10/2000, John D. Giorgis wrote:
>Jim Sharkey wrote:
>>John, I know that you're passionate about this subject, but don't you
>>realize that your need to constantly proselytize only serves to make people
>>tune you out? I've been on the Brin-L list for about six months, and you
>>have brought this topic up almost monthly.
>
>I'd go back and check the records. II've only brought up the issue *once*
>in the past six months, and that was in response to a specific request to
>follow up on some information from our previous go-round at the discussion.
John, I think you have raised it more than once, since I remember at least
two occasions where I winced, since June.
>Anyone ever consider why so many people consistently end up doing things
>that they don't want to do? When do people keep engaging in behaviours
>that are counterproductive to their goals? Can anyone think of some other
>excellent examples of this phenomenon?
Yes. It's human nature. We are all convinced we have the rational solution
to whatever questions we are presented with as a group, and rather than
think that perhaps there is more than one rational solution to a given
problem -- because the problem is a divergent one, and a matter of ethics
and beliefs which are necessarily not universal. Instead of finding ways in
which our discourses can coexist in dialogue, we insist on railing at the
singular discourse, convinced that we are correct.
"Productive" and "counterproductive" are words that have lost a lot of the
meaning that they once afforded, unfortunately. They're now usually fixed
upon some end-oriented goal system: make a convert, convince the other
person that she or he is wrong. But sometimes the product of an endeavour,
such as dialogue, is mutual understanding and respectful coexistence,
rather than the production of agreement or conversion. [I note that
sometimes, however, conversion of some sort is necessary to produce the
possibility of peaceful coexistence and respect. That's different.] I think
perhaps a valuable model to replace it with might be that of dialogue,
where open and repsectful discussion could be valued as a thing unto
itself, and even seen as a long-term process which is itself the goal.
Therefore, bringing up abortion to convert people is probably
counterproductive and harmful inthe long run; perhaps understanding the
other person's point of view might be more productive for you, John. Not
just understanding the basic arguments but empathizing with the position,
imagining the worldview in which it could be conceivable that abortion is
not a sin. I know, it's challenging. Nobody said being a fully human being,
or that living a life of active and imaginative compassion and unjudgment
of others was easy, but your God did make the demand nonetheless ["Let he
who has not sinned cast the first stone..."]. All of this needn't entail
changing your opinion of abortion, mind you; only your opinion of others
and of what it means to live in a heterogenous (ie. pluralist) society.
And I'm pretty sure you remember my stance on it isn't, on a moral scale,
all that different from yours, John. But since we live in a society in
which peoples' values differ . . . well, I am not willing to buy into the
conceit that I am the only person who knows right from wrong (along with
those who agree with me).
Gord
