On May 16, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Fair enough. You believe that I have my head up my ass, and you either don't believe that it is a personal attack OR that you are above the community etiquette of Brin-L.
No, but when one of the list-owners is as egregiously offensive - and, frankly, malign - as you are, I'm thinking it's pretty much a lost cause. I regret saying it. I shouldn't descend to your level, however well-deserved that might be.
Gautam, from here it seems that you're fairly sure of many of the views you hold. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course, but in this case I'm not sure your certitude is helping much.
There have been times when I've heatedly accused you of arrogance in one way or another; those comments weren't productive, and I apologize for them. But it might not hurt to consider that language communicates much more than ideas; it also communicates mindset and attitudes, and there have been times when I've seen a lot of belittlement of the perspectives of others in the statements you make. It might not be intentional but that is how it comes across.
It may not hurt to ask yourself, sometimes, whether your sense of frustration is fair. It's possible that what you're trying to express isn't getting through, and reworking the logic of an argument, looking for analogies and so on can help. I've seen you do that a couple times, and your points do get clarified when you do.
Sometimes it's possible for something to be blindingly obvious to you that just isn't so clear to others. When that happens I think it's usually more productive to attempt to explain what it is about the topic in discussion that is so clear.
Finally, discussion and debate often require everyone involved to be somewhat flexible -- or at least be willing to be flexible -- and to occasionally concede that others might have a good point about any given topic. Anyone who values his ideas and opinions might not feel entirely sanguine about such concessions, but when one is able to integrate other perspectives, one's own point of view tends to be ... not strengthened, per se, not more set, but perhaps tempered, and somewhat modulated.
The person you are now is not the person you were ten years ago, and it's safe to assume that you won't be as you are now in 2015. Views change, opinions change, attitudes change, particularly with broader experience. I don't think, for instance, that Nick is waffling when he reflects changes in outlook. That strikes me more as being personal growth.
There are no rules saying you have to hold the perspective you do now forever. There is no threat in changing one's mind on any subject or ideal. And there really isn't anything of merit to be found in defending a given point of view to extremes.
I realize I fall into these traps myself, and often; for what it's worth this is my take on things when I'm able to step back, breathe a little and think about what's really going on. When I get genuinely impatient with anyone in a discussion, often I think it's symptomatic of perceived threat. That doesn't, however, nullify the validity of the other's point of view, and it's unfair of me to proceed as though it does.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
