We need to talk

We need to have those difficult conversations with those people with whom we may vehemently disagree because currently our dialogue is conducted through an echo-chamber of misinformation and vitriol. James Damore produced some thoughtful analysis of the "diversity" culture at Google for which he has paid a heavy price. History shows where this will end - in bloodshed, on both sides of the argument.

What we find, when we talk and explore reality, based on evidence, is that there is a lot more we can agree on than divides us. We need to be open to new information and become attuned to the balance and subtleties of arguments. When we do, we are on the way to evolving to a higher state.

The left/right divide is a construct of the current political economy; that is the source of our troubles.

thisisacause600.png

We need to talk.

Comments   

 
0 #5 Clive Menzies 2017-08-17 14:04
Quoting Janos Abel:

You are right to observe that I do not pay close attention to the archive material. However, that is not relevant to this exchange.


Hi Janos
I beg to differ because otherwise, you are missing the copious research and analysis, conducted by others, which supports our conclusions.

Quote:
The fact that we identified the three issues as “causes” – not just major issues – shows critical, but not necessarily analytical, thought.
You seem to have missed the reference to this in my post.
So once again, the three “causes” are possibly symptoms of deeper lying causes – a stupefied victim population, say, suffering from induced false consciousness.
The key word is "induced"; such false consciousness is the product of corrupt hierarchical institutions. What made humans susceptible to abandoning responsibility for themselves and each other? - deferring to a "higher authority" initially through creation of religion and the priesthood and then beyond, is an open question. But that institutional hierarchy is the foundation on which current dysfunctional political economy is built is indisputable. That the Structural Elite power is exerted through these institutions is similarly well evidenced as are the significance of theft of the commons and usury.

Quote:
This is an analytical comment; possibly mistaken, but still needs more airing than it got so far in our sessions.
If we consider a particular problem space as a cause-effect net, an issue may be easily taken as cause when it is a symptom of a deeper lying cause.
I am just pointing out that we maybe making such a mistake.
Of course, we must repeatedly challenge our analysis and we'll devote time to this in future sessions.

Meanwhile, the way to challenge our analysis is to address the recent paper, work through the copious references. Then you may identify the flaws you allude to but don't specify.
http://iei.kau.edu.sa/Files/121/Files/153872_30-02-09-Clive-3.pdf
 
 
0 #4 Janos Abel 2017-08-15 15:58
Quoting Clive Menzies :
It is only light on analytical thought if you've not engaged with all the materials which have been co-created within Critical Thinkings archive.

Clive,
You are right to observe that I do not pay close attention to the archive material. However, that is not relevant to this exchange.

The fact that we identified the three issues as “causes” – not just major issues – shows critical, but not necessarily analytical, thought.
You seem to have missed the reference to this in my post.
So once again, the three “causes” are possibly symptoms of deeper lying causes – a stupefied victim population, say, suffering from induced false consciousness.
This is an analytical comment; possibly mistaken, but still needs more airing than it got so far in our sessions.
If we consider a particular problem space as a cause-effect net, an issue may be easily taken as cause when it is a symptom of a deeper lying cause.
I am just pointing out that we maybe making such a mistake.
 
 
0 #3 Clive Menzies 2017-08-14 12:55
Quoting Janos Abel:
This a problem description, a first step.

The second step is problem analysis in order to achieve sufficient understanding of the nature of the problem. Then we are ready to devise strategies and go for problem solution.

Maybe our team is strong on critical thinking but too light on analytical thought.

There can be a big difference between critical and analytical attention to problems.

Could not the three "causes" above be symptoms themselves in the light of analytical investigation?


Hi Janos

It is only light on analytical thought if you've not engaged with all the materials which have been co-created within Critical Thinkings archive.

Cumulatively, all the evidence points to three flaws at the root of the political economy.

Perhaps you ought to critique the recently published paper and follow through on the sources, then decide whether our process has been light on analysis.

iei.kau.edu.sa/Files/121/Files/153872_30-02-09-Clive-3.pdf
 
 
0 #2 Janos Abel 2017-08-13 13:26
This a problem description, a first step.

The second step is problem analysis in order to achieve sufficient understanding of the nature of the problem. Then we are ready to devise strategies and go for problem solution.

Maybe our team is strong on critical thinking but too light on analytical thought.

There can be a big difference between critical and analytical attention to problems.

Could not the three "causes" above be symptoms themselves in the light of analytical investigation?
 
 
0 #1 James Walter 2017-08-12 11:23
People don't talk to each other; they debate each other; winning is everything; to hell with the world and people as long as I am thought right. I was posting on facebook and just gave up. No one wanted to listen - their minds were already made up - one way or the other. A fraternity brother of mine who became a talking head for a statewide TV station won't even consider that the MSM is intentionally slanted no matter how many facts I gave. A very intelligent man in California started insulting and attacking me personally, and my sources, instead of logical arguing; forget accepting the facts on global warming.
Most people devote a few minutes each day to either/or/and newspapers and tv/radio news. The talking head did not say my sources were fake news, but he ignored them - and either the MSM or mine had to be fake. So he just ignored it. Still contends that Assad gassed his own people.

1/3 of Americans opposed the revolution. 1/3 of Americans supported it. 1/3 didn't give a damn. Talking changed nothing
 

Please register to post comments