----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 10:14 AM Subject: What's a Crisis, Anyway?
> > C'mon guys. This is a MAILing list. We send EMAIL to one another. > Sometimes we like what we read, sometimes we don't. Regardless, nothing > is at stake except our understanding of things, and nobody has any > coercive power to make anybody else understand something in a way they > don't want. Right? Our livelihoods are not at stake, America's honor is > not at stake, the social-democracy principles of European government are > not at stake. > > So, under these circumstances, what exactly is a "crisis?" What's > "critically important" here? > > Little-to-nothing. > > In fact, there are only two ways a crisis -- that is, bad things happening > beyond one's control -- can happen. One: some person starts spewing > filth everywhere and he can't be shut off. We have a pretty good working > definition of what that involves, and nobody here fits that definition. > Yet. Two: (and this is more subjective) one grants oneself license > to attack something or someone on principle alone, in effect surrendering > control over ones's actions and causing one to inch closer and closer to > the sort of behavior described in "One" above. > > "One" is an objective state of crisis. "Two" is a subjective state of > crisis that one projects onto the list and even helps to establish through > a lack of self-control. > > Neither is pretty to watch, and neither does anything to improve a mailing > list in any respect. > > In short: nobody can cause a crisis by himself, except in situation > "One," and such crises are easily remedied. In all other crises, the > alleged crisis-causer must be aided and abetted by those with whom he > argues. If the "crisis" can't persist with one's help egging it on and > nagging it and wailing over it, then one has oneself become the source of > the "crisis." I am going to use Jeroen as an example, but this could be apllied to anyone/everyone on the list. Jeroen is just one man. It is somewhat unfair that he is so often singled out. (Even if he brings much of it on himself, it still takes at least one other person to make an argument and to make an argument go bad.) Jeroen is a proud person. Maybe overly proud in some estimations. But if you took away his pride, would he be the same person we know? Trying to force someone to back down from a position is a pride damaging tactic. It is also uncivilised behavior, and it is a behavior I am going to try and forgo in the future. (Yes, I agree that I have been guilty of it in the past.) It all hinges on the word "You". One can say this or that position is untenable because yadda yadda. But if one says "You" are wrong because yadda yadda, then one has made the mistake of making the argument personal and has attemted (unintentinally perhaps) to wound anothers pride. This tends to lead to angry debate and we are all trying to avoid that now, are we not? Jeroen believes the statements he makes. Why else would he make them? He has reasons, right or wrong, for believeing as he does. You or I may not agree, but we have to assume an honest intent on his part. Assuming this, one can only, if one is taking the civilised road, argue with the reasons behind his assumptions, making effort not to point the argument at Jeroen. Pursuasiveness has a better long term return than confrontation. It is human nature to want to feel that you are "right". It takes time for a person to change their mind, especially if emotional content has intruded into the argument or has been evoked by attacks on ones country for example. In the long term it is easier to persuade someone that a position is wrong than it is to directly attack a possibly long held belief. Jeroen has a sense of humor that sometimes ventures into the irreverent. One just has to accept these things sometimes. Not everyone appreciates my sense of humor all the time, but I know that I mean well, so I think I owe it to Jeroen to try to understand where his humor comes from. Sometimes humor can be mean-spirited, that too should be accepted, recognising that mean-spirited humor can often be part of a healing process or the dissoloution of long held belief. Humor can also be cultural. What a jape may mean to the reader, is not always what was intended by the writer. Again you have to give the benefit of the doubt, or if you feel strongly stung, ask for an explaination. It is important to have a sense of humor about ones self or ones situation. If you cannot see why you may be seen as funny by someone in another situation, then you have room for personal growth. No one here is perfect and we will always make mistakes. Sometimes we will be dead wrong and will have it pointed out to us. So it is extremely, I mean it, extremely important to have a willing forgiveness of others, ready, ready and willing, ready willing and able to be handed out to anyone and everyone. (awful sentence I know) The default position should be"Everyone on this list is my friend". Its ok to feel anger, but expressing it is altogether a different matter. Some of the people I care the most for in this world are people with whom I have had the most violent disagreements. I have lashed out in anger at them at times, and feel like I am the luckiest man on earth that I was able to be forgiven and benefited from their friendship. Jeroen, I want to apologise for using you as the example in this. I could have used anyones name, but I felt that aiding you here would aid everyone. I dont agree with Jeroen all the time. I disagree with him alot. (I've said a lot of mean things too.) But Jeroen is my friend and his friendship is valuable. Everyone here is valuable to me, and your worth as friends is more than I could ever hope to obtain. xponent All You Need Is Love Maru rob
