Quote:
|
Another trouble is you may say what you mean and mean what you say only for it not to be understood.
|
This is true. Dissemination of thought does not necessarily guarantee consumption and retention. I could lecture algebra to elementary school children. I would not be wrong in my dissemination, but the children would not be able to consume and retain my lecture. Also, the ability to consume and retain does not guarantee the quality of dissemination. For example, technical engineers like programmers have a poor stereotype of their ability to interact with others.
Quote:
|
But this cannot be applied to philosophy. Words can and do have different meanings. This is also true in a dialogue or any kind of conversation. If you decide that a word can only have one meaning; "to manipulate means to nurture", "control is a legal requirement" then you create for yourself a doctrine or as you say rigid ideology.
|
The choice to narrowly define a term is not equivalent to "doctrine", nor are either words equivalent to "ideology", rigid or otherwise. Words have limited definition; within the context of its usage one ascertains its meaning and the rest of possible meanings are dismissed. Our dialogues are intended to clearly provide for the dismissal of possible meanings, leaving our consumers with strong direction as to how we want the meaning of our message consumed.
Quote:
|
In such a case it would be wiser to come up with a question, like "what is the basis of your definition?" That is challenging the poster to come up with an explanation. That explanation will either clarify things or show a mistake in reasoning
|
This is a good question to ask when the meaning of the message is unclear. Of course, in doing so we are confirming that the original message did not sufficiently communicate the meaning of the message...
Quote:
|
Jumping to conclusions will also contribute to confusion. And starting from the premiss that no matter what, you are always right or worse the other is wrong and therefor the enemy, will not only lead to confusion but to frustration and much animosity.
|
First, if my message required my consumer to jump to a conclusion, that means I left the path unclear. I can blame the consumer, but I was the one who was unclear enough as to cause them to make an educated guess. Unless it was Spock, because I trust Spock's educated guesses more than most people's facts (sorry, some Trekkie humor).
Second, to begin from an infallible premise is often the best way to begin most debates, if not dialogues. For example, many debate arguments begin with a factual statement, around which the debate is focused. I think it is obvious that equating "wrong" with "enemy" is a poor association; if that was the case my house would be at war (I love you honey).
Sometimes when our uke's give us a hard time, I'll ask nage, "what did you do to cause uke to hunker down?" We often blame uke for bad energy or bad partnership. We sometimes forget that nage's role is to communicate too. Expressing ideology is difficult because we are often emotionally attached to the message. Rejecting the message is in some respect considered personal rejection. This forum tends to express ideological perspectives often, much of the time without adequate evidential support. I think we try to accommodate these perspectives with greater tolerance than many other forums.