See, the thing is, we all create straw men, all the time. We do not interpret perfectly to ourselves, the position of our dialogic opponents, and we trot out the aspects of the argument that seem most problematic. But that's in essence what the dialectic is all about, right? By verbalizing our disagreement, we make room for correction and refinement.
Where the trust (love) heals the problems that arise, is in inserting simple caveats - "it seems to me, that what you are saying is drivel" is a lot more trustworthy than "what you say is drivel". I think this point has been made by someone else in this discussion, pardon me for forgetting who but I'm reading fast and trying to catch up a bit while on semi-vacation. But trust is also built by remembering that at all times, we only have a straw-man-like image of what the other fellow is on about, and can only hope to refine our image over time. A process! (where have I heard that one before?) This is something I've been fascinated by recently by a study of the golden calf at Sinai in MoQ terms. What is it about humans that we so want to set our beliefs in stone? And why are we always so ready to trust the priests? dmb's problems with "popularity might be related to being stuck in a double-bind - being a designated priest of a system that is specifically anti-priestcraft is problematic. I feel for you dude. John Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
