| [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] |
| [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Author Index] | [Subject Index] |
Visionaries,
May I make a plea that we step back from
the discussion for just a second and watch what is happening? Talking to people
across paradigms is a very tricky business, and I don’t think anyone on
this list to date, including myself, is really any good at it.
Imagine our discussions to be *like* a debate between the rules of
checkers and the rules of backgammon. From the perspective of the checkers’
paradigm, backgammon is just stupid and circular. From the perspective of
backgammon, checkers can’t possibly operate without dice and triangles. When
the checkers side is challenged by a backgammon norm, all they see is
arrogance, authoritarianism, dogmatism: “Who are these people to suggest
that other rules exists; no rule in checkers allows for that” To
themselves, checkers seems to be an obvious, natural, and a reasonable
description of how the world works. To rebut the backgammon objections, all they
have to do is cite more rules of checkers. And to find horrors in the other
game, all you have to do is cite your own rules again: “Those evil backgammoners
actually deny the morality of ‘kinging’ and ‘jumping;’
but the rules of checkers are so clear on those points.”
The biggest problem seems to be those folks
who insist that we’re only playing one game. For them, when someone tries
to suggest something backgammonish, they will immediately assume their opponent
is crazy, insincere, and manipulative, since “we all know the rules of
checkers.” All the demonizing, motive-guessing, and name-calling occurs
when we insist that we’re all playing checkers and that the rules of
checkers are the ultimate reality.
So back in our world, Joan O. accuses Doug
W. and I of a “pattern” of defining,
curtailing, and putting words into our opponent’s mouths and that that “isn’t
dialog.” And Debi S. insists that we’re not schizophrenic but we
act that way with “circular and self-referencing ‘logical thought’
similar in kind if not degree.” The first thing that comes to mind on my
game board is: are they serious? They’ve got to be joking. That’s
exactly what they’ve been doing.
But in the end, all this blind checkers-backgammon
discussion is pretty boring and fruitless. What if we said to ourselves, the
next time we think someone we disagree with on the list is cheating,
manipulating, crazy, etc., we’ll stop and ask if we’re just pulling
a “judge-checkers-by backgammon-mistake.” That would really raise
the level of discussion.
Won’t progress come when, instead of
just using “our” game’s rules to veto another, we can ask if
the game in question really lives up to its own rules: a checkers game that
sneaks in moves from Monopoly flunks. Then we can politely observe among ourselves
that “that” game fails to live up to its own rules or that “that”
game claims to want “hotels” but the rules of checkers won’t
allow for it. Why not just assume that each person is sincere but is talking
from a different paradigm? That way we could get beyond demonizing anyone who
disagrees with us. Is that too crazy?
Sincerely,