On 22 Apr 2014, at 15:19, [email protected] wrote:
First of all, on reflection I think my behaviour has been a little
hostile lately, and I'd like to broadcast a general apology about
that. Not only Bruno, but I make a special mention for him because
the guy gives me and other people a lot of time, and I was actually
rather unpleasant in at least one post. Sorry man! But also no
exceptions to this 'sorry'...the only reason I don't mention each
and every regrettable conduct, is because then maybe I'd be
forgetting someone. One other problem is the swearing...which is a
behaviour reasonable avoid rules about....because everyone is
reasonable. I think I've been flying close to unreasonable...so
again apologies for that also. Can we put it all down to a few hard
days at the office :O)
No problem. Glad you were aware, and that you have the courtesy to
recognize.
So the interesting part of any self-reflection is normally - for me
- about noticing how easy it is to pigeon hole other people - or
their views - based on small evidence and/or perhaps mistakes that
they are making in how they judge you - me...oneself. What I'd like
to say about this, is I don't think it's a very interesting matter,
save those aspects that are fairly general to all or most people. At
least as 'risks' or 'influences' or 'tendencies.
For example, thinking about the Internet, an observation would be
that many debates that are important, are heavily represented across
internet social/debate mediums, and that by-and-large there are
typical battle-lines which are fairly reliably drawn in terms, not
of a specific position but 'packages' of positions...often which -
also reliably - span not just one of the important contemporary
questions, but a whole a range. Reliably enough, spanning really
large patchworks of political/philosophical/social positionings.
So...no surprises....that a landscape such as this gives rise to the
'rule of thumb'. If someone introduces him/her self into a debate
with a certain positioning, the rule of thumb can be powerful
psychological imprint for a great many people in that debate.
Particularly when a debate has become furious, distrusting, and
intractable. What I'd suggest - based on personal observations of
myself...and other people too....is that these 'rule of thumbs' that
we experience online, in certain types of debate (like climate) are
actually subject to a kind of group-think self-fulfilling
accelerant. It's not just the 'other' side that will pigeon hole our
position, but the 'home' side.
People on one side will assume you are one of the 'good' guys in
that debate. They will leap to your defence, just as those from the
'other' side, having identified you as one of the 'bad' guys of the
debate will have thrown possibly some slightly loaded response at
you. A hostile projection from one direction, and a friendly/homely
projection from another, can sort of drive you into a 'camp' that
perhaps represents package of positions that you are very much not
on board with. But the ferocity of the argument can be such that,
you never really get a chance to position yourself in a way that
might have been much easier for people on all sides to bridge.
It's not that we don't try. We do try, but chances are, the other
side will have a lot of individuals who are currently midway through
a heated debate, intellectually enraged about one thing or another,
and chances are the way these attempts at individual positioning
will be received, will be as weaknesses, or opportunities, to make
some allegation....which in fact is also typically a package of
positions, not just an allegation but also including various slants
on professed innocence, or purety of motivation....pregnancies of
proving associations,...that if this allegation that your attempt at
an individual positioning just opened the door to, is true...and the
argument is suddenly that it must be based on what you just tried to
say..,.,..that all those other connected positions are true also.
So the whole place just explodes in a new round of enraged
arguing...with the net result of hardening the engrained battle-
lines, rather than softening.
I'm offering the above very much as an ad-lib written 'illustration'
of what is very much one instance - I think - of a more general
difficulty...that may be related to the complexities of the
communication revolution we are still in the early stages of. I'll
be viewing the presentation telmo recommends in his latest post to
the cannabis thread, because I think the issues he touches on in the
bullet points are significant. The perception I'm offering here is
that, we seem to be finding it harder and harder to talk to about
anything that is more and more important that we should be. Be 'we'
I mean humanity on the airwaves in general.
I am probably simple minded, but I think that there are truths and
falsities.
We can't never be sure which are what, but we can agree on ideas and
ways to reason, and test consequences.
Now in the human affairs people used all sort of other strategies,
which can go from authoritative intimidation to foolproof terror, from
simple exceptional lies to systematic brainwashing.
I do agree with Valery, and Orwell, that the basic only choice is
between logic and war.
Logic is still war, but done with peaceful means!
Apology accepted :)
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
