--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There's a difference between discussing ideas for > > > > the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts > > > > and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands > > > > the difference...discussions with him are almost > > > > always really discussions. When he engages in one > > > > of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- > > > > everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he > > > > generally tries to avoid being sucked into the > > > > game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns > > > > it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same > > > > thing, as do a few others here. > > > > > > She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting > > > discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a > > > POV is a debate, not an ego battle. > > > > We must agree to disagree. > > > > A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. > > What else could believe that its point of > > view was "right" enough to debate it with > > others. > > > > Fifty people can have fifty POVs.
Including 50 POV on the meaning of "debate". (well 60 POV if you include all the voices in my head). One contextual meaning of debate stems from "debate team". In that process, one team, upon a coin flip, is called upon to defend, or put forth the merits of one position, the other team the other. If the coin had been heads and not tails, Team A would be debating, defending, making the case for, expounding the merits of the other side of the question. In that context, "debate" is hardly an ego-bound POV that will be defended to the death. the position is long-lived until the judges proclaim "Switch!" Lawyers do the same. The ytake a case. They may have their own opinions and POV. But they argue the merits of the case for the side they represent. But the main point I believe is beyond semantics. Whether we use the term discussion, debate, exploration of ideas, exchange of views, the underlying phenomenon is to the degree ones personal value, self-esteem, world view, etc is challenged and destabilized by a counter POV. On a debate team, members' personal value, self-esteem, world view are not challenged and destabilized when the other team presents its best case. A lawyer personal value, self-esteem, world view is not challenged and destabilized when the opposing counsel presents his clients best case. If any thing is challenged -- and I argue even that should not be -- it is ones self-esteem regarding ones analytical skills, factual knowledge base, depth of conceptual thinking, etc when faced with a better counter argument. That, to me is an opportunity to learn, Or at lease admire as you (Raunchy) have done with Curtis and Judy. However, if ones personal value, self-esteem, world view, etc is tied integral to ones POV, then a counter view does become a threat to ones internal appraisals of self-worth. And when this happens, fireworks often ensue. "The mothership is being attacked, this is life and death situation, all hands on deck, damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, this is a fight to the death!" And it can be glorious entertainment to watch such fireworks, to see the personal ego under attack and see the contortions, energy signatures, emotional frustration and intellectual hoops of dishonor such a challenged sense of self-esteem will pursue to infuse life back into the battered soul clinging to a dying, gasping POV. >The person who can put forward the best defense of his or her POV is more >believable and has less ego involvement than the person who puts forward an >indefensible ego driven fantasy and defends it as "opinion" because his ego is >too frail to debate. > What is curious is the POV that the output of ones mind, ones opinion, is beyond reproach, beyond discussion, beyond modification. "I had the thought damn it, it must be right. By God it IS right! And it is not subject to refinement or expansion". I think that's a classic description of a reactionary. On the opposite side of the spectrum are those who see their opinions and POVs as works in progress, something yet to be shaped, polished and perhaps discarded when a large crack is found in the midst of an -- up to that point -- elegant marble portrait.
