The Art of Disagreement
07 Jun 2016 22:12 #243863
by Proteus
House of Orion
Offices: Education Administration
TM: Alexandre Orion | Apprentice: Loudzoo (Knight)
The Book of Proteus
IP Journal | Apprentice Volume | Knighthood Journal | Personal Log
The Art of Disagreement was created by Proteus
The Art of Disagreement
As a forum, we have had a good share of discussions, debates, and arguments.
As I've observed many of these, I have noticed patterns where they go downhill, and patterns where they turn out with a successful closing. I'm mentioning this to give some suggestions based on these patterns, and hopefully, enough of us might read this and utilize what we are learning at this temple to make us better at maturely disagreeing, both here at the temple, and out in the world as Jedi (as examples of the better people we wish to be).
So, let's explore this and see if we can create an "Art" of disagreements...
What happens during a discussion when we feel disagreement toward someone's views, and we act on it with a phrase like this:
"No, I disagree. [Insert personal opinions/views here to contradict the recipient]" or
"That is wrong, actually [insert one's own views here to correct the recipient]"
?
Chances are, the recipient will disagree back, likely with a defense, rinse, repeat.
At some point, you may notice a lack of supported factual information, and an abundance of hearsay, opinion, personal stances, and paradigm-influenced expressions, all aiming to take down the other's justification for their position.
This is when the discussion spirals down, becomes compromised, and risks becoming potentially personal and even perpetual, until one or both participants flip the table, rage quit, and from that point on, disconnect themselves from one another.
Am I correct? Does this sound familiar?
But, what if disagreements had a different approach? An approach that actually left out any and all responses directly expressing disagreement, and instead, ONLY included
1. Probing questions for clarification, elaboration, and exploration, and then...
2. Comparison of supporting facts, using an etiquette that included expressions and words such as "interesting", "curious", "well, let's explore this and see what we've got.", etc. (your choice)
How would disagreements turn out with this etiquette?
If this kind of approach sounds more favorable, for everyone here who has been left feeling irritated or attacked during and after an argument, would you be willing to learn it? Could we actually teach ourselves (and one another) this way of communicating and employ using it actively until it grows into a habit? Maybe even create deliberate exercises to practice it?
Could this "Art of Disagreement" become more fueled by the want to learn, than the want to teach?
"To be understood, as to understand" ...
As a forum, we have had a good share of discussions, debates, and arguments.
As I've observed many of these, I have noticed patterns where they go downhill, and patterns where they turn out with a successful closing. I'm mentioning this to give some suggestions based on these patterns, and hopefully, enough of us might read this and utilize what we are learning at this temple to make us better at maturely disagreeing, both here at the temple, and out in the world as Jedi (as examples of the better people we wish to be).
So, let's explore this and see if we can create an "Art" of disagreements...
What happens during a discussion when we feel disagreement toward someone's views, and we act on it with a phrase like this:
"No, I disagree. [Insert personal opinions/views here to contradict the recipient]" or
"That is wrong, actually [insert one's own views here to correct the recipient]"
?
Chances are, the recipient will disagree back, likely with a defense, rinse, repeat.
At some point, you may notice a lack of supported factual information, and an abundance of hearsay, opinion, personal stances, and paradigm-influenced expressions, all aiming to take down the other's justification for their position.
This is when the discussion spirals down, becomes compromised, and risks becoming potentially personal and even perpetual, until one or both participants flip the table, rage quit, and from that point on, disconnect themselves from one another.
Am I correct? Does this sound familiar?
But, what if disagreements had a different approach? An approach that actually left out any and all responses directly expressing disagreement, and instead, ONLY included
1. Probing questions for clarification, elaboration, and exploration, and then...
2. Comparison of supporting facts, using an etiquette that included expressions and words such as "interesting", "curious", "well, let's explore this and see what we've got.", etc. (your choice)
How would disagreements turn out with this etiquette?
If this kind of approach sounds more favorable, for everyone here who has been left feeling irritated or attacked during and after an argument, would you be willing to learn it? Could we actually teach ourselves (and one another) this way of communicating and employ using it actively until it grows into a habit? Maybe even create deliberate exercises to practice it?
Could this "Art of Disagreement" become more fueled by the want to learn, than the want to teach?
"To be understood, as to understand" ...
|
“For it is easy to criticize and break down the spirit of others, but to know yourself takes a lifetime.”
― Bruce Lee |
|---|
House of Orion
Offices: Education Administration
TM: Alexandre Orion | Apprentice: Loudzoo (Knight)
The Book of Proteus
IP Journal | Apprentice Volume | Knighthood Journal | Personal Log
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Leah Starspectre
-
- Offline
- Banned
-
07 Jun 2016 22:17 - 07 Jun 2016 22:24 #243864
by Leah Starspectre
Fantastic!!
Although I would add that using "facts" (statistics, studies, Science in general, etc) is not always appropriate. Such as in discussions that centre around personal experience.
Replied by Leah Starspectre on topic The Art of Disagreement
Warning: Spoiler!
Fantastic!!
Although I would add that using "facts" (statistics, studies, Science in general, etc) is not always appropriate. Such as in discussions that centre around personal experience.
Last edit: 07 Jun 2016 22:24 by Leah Starspectre.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
07 Jun 2016 22:23 - 07 Jun 2016 22:24 #243865
by Proteus
Right. In those cases, it might be recalling personal experiences around the topic for example, and how they affected us, though, it would not include expressions aimed at putting us on any platform of being right, but instead of simply putting it on the table for objective consideration.
House of Orion
Offices: Education Administration
TM: Alexandre Orion | Apprentice: Loudzoo (Knight)
The Book of Proteus
IP Journal | Apprentice Volume | Knighthood Journal | Personal Log
Replied by Proteus on topic The Art of Disagreement
Miss_Leah wrote: Fantastic!!
Although I would add that using "facts" (statistics, studies, Science in general, etc) is not always appropriate. Such as in discussions that centre around personal experience.
Right. In those cases, it might be recalling personal experiences around the topic for example, and how they affected us, though, it would not include expressions aimed at putting us on any platform of being right, but instead of simply putting it on the table for objective consideration.
|
|
“For it is easy to criticize and break down the spirit of others, but to know yourself takes a lifetime.”
― Bruce Lee |
|---|
House of Orion
Offices: Education Administration
TM: Alexandre Orion | Apprentice: Loudzoo (Knight)
The Book of Proteus
IP Journal | Apprentice Volume | Knighthood Journal | Personal Log
Last edit: 07 Jun 2016 22:24 by Proteus.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Leah Starspectre
-
- Offline
- Banned
-
07 Jun 2016 22:26 #243866
by Leah Starspectre
Agreed. I only mention it because I've seen people discount personal experience (used appropriately) with science. Basically saying "Your experience doesn't matter because *science*"
Replied by Leah Starspectre on topic The Art of Disagreement
Proteus wrote:
Miss_Leah wrote: [/spoiler]
Fantastic!!
Although I would add that using "facts" (statistics, studies, Science in general, etc) is not always appropriate. Such as in discussions that centre around personal experience.
Right. In those cases, it might be recalling personal experiences around the topic for example, and how they affected us, though, it would not include expressions aimed at putting us on any platform of being right, but instead of simply putting it on the table for objective consideration.
Agreed. I only mention it because I've seen people discount personal experience (used appropriately) with science. Basically saying "Your experience doesn't matter because *science*"
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
-
- Visitor
-
- Alexandre Orion
-
- Offline
- Master
-
- Council Member
-
- Senior Ordained Clergy Person
-
- om mani padme hum
08 Jun 2016 04:48 #243918
by Alexandre Orion
Be a philosopher ; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.
~ David Hume
Chaque homme a des devoirs envers l'homme en tant qu'homme.
~ Henri Bergson
Replied by Alexandre Orion on topic The Art of Disagreement
Yes, Steve's right about that, 'the title' says much. What is an "art" ?
It strikes me as, insomuch that an "art" is about exposing an avenue to the transcendent (transcending what is "me", that is), then disagreement can be an expression of approach rather than distance. Often, when one observes disagreement in progress, it isn't about anything essential at all, but only a vain protection of the "me" that wants a particular thing - usually fabulous - to be truer than the same thing from another perspective.
Science cannot do a damn thing about phenomenological (experience) conscientiousness, except permit a certain measure of support for personality (ex: "I know this"). Even science is a matter of experience (in French, 'to experience' is 'experimenter'). And like in science - objectively speaking -, holding fast to what I want to be true because that lets me feel more comfortable, doesn't make it true nor even just more likely.
Thus we would be wise to let disagreement be an art form ; in other words, like down brush strokes on a canvas with my up ones (or vice-versa), like the forward step in a dance with my back one, the natural note that follows my sharp/flat one ... As Watts pointed out, "conflict" at one level is always "agreement" at another.
We would likewise be wise to not rant our disagreements in a manner of self-(ego)-protection. "I", "me", "mine" - even if we are talking about our 'experiences' - are very shaky grounds for disagreement. When this sort of contradiction is sprayed out like tear-gas, it is most likely just to protect the self from having to itch of uncertainty. It is not very graceful to dance together in a cloud of tear-gas ... :S
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWm2eQzjzNY
It strikes me as, insomuch that an "art" is about exposing an avenue to the transcendent (transcending what is "me", that is), then disagreement can be an expression of approach rather than distance. Often, when one observes disagreement in progress, it isn't about anything essential at all, but only a vain protection of the "me" that wants a particular thing - usually fabulous - to be truer than the same thing from another perspective.
Science cannot do a damn thing about phenomenological (experience) conscientiousness, except permit a certain measure of support for personality (ex: "I know this"). Even science is a matter of experience (in French, 'to experience' is 'experimenter'). And like in science - objectively speaking -, holding fast to what I want to be true because that lets me feel more comfortable, doesn't make it true nor even just more likely.
Thus we would be wise to let disagreement be an art form ; in other words, like down brush strokes on a canvas with my up ones (or vice-versa), like the forward step in a dance with my back one, the natural note that follows my sharp/flat one ... As Watts pointed out, "conflict" at one level is always "agreement" at another.
We would likewise be wise to not rant our disagreements in a manner of self-(ego)-protection. "I", "me", "mine" - even if we are talking about our 'experiences' - are very shaky grounds for disagreement. When this sort of contradiction is sprayed out like tear-gas, it is most likely just to protect the self from having to itch of uncertainty. It is not very graceful to dance together in a cloud of tear-gas ... :S
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWm2eQzjzNY
Be a philosopher ; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.
~ David Hume
Chaque homme a des devoirs envers l'homme en tant qu'homme.
~ Henri Bergson
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
08 Jun 2016 11:40 #243947
by Proteus
House of Orion
Offices: Education Administration
TM: Alexandre Orion | Apprentice: Loudzoo (Knight)
The Book of Proteus
IP Journal | Apprentice Volume | Knighthood Journal | Personal Log
Replied by Proteus on topic The Art of Disagreement
Maybe using any one aspect alone to chalk all of something up wouldn't be the best idea anyway, whether its facts/science, or personal experience. In fact, if it were at all possible to have any of them in a discussion, but not to use them To chalk anything up, but instead to just curiously explore the topic without defense, it might go a longer way toward meeting the other person at ideas that we didn't originally think about.
What I'm imagining, is the difference between two people playing a competitive card game, and trying to win with the higher hand, vs two people who are given hands, who don't feel that they actually "own" the cards, but simply acknowledge that those are the cards they happened to be holding, and not knowing everything about them. They might be more interested in comparing their hands (like comparing notes), to see what patterns come out of them. But that would require the will to set aside the normal reaction of defensive/offensive testifying - basically, setting aside all ego agenda.
What I'm imagining, is the difference between two people playing a competitive card game, and trying to win with the higher hand, vs two people who are given hands, who don't feel that they actually "own" the cards, but simply acknowledge that those are the cards they happened to be holding, and not knowing everything about them. They might be more interested in comparing their hands (like comparing notes), to see what patterns come out of them. But that would require the will to set aside the normal reaction of defensive/offensive testifying - basically, setting aside all ego agenda.
|
|
“For it is easy to criticize and break down the spirit of others, but to know yourself takes a lifetime.”
― Bruce Lee |
|---|
House of Orion
Offices: Education Administration
TM: Alexandre Orion | Apprentice: Loudzoo (Knight)
The Book of Proteus
IP Journal | Apprentice Volume | Knighthood Journal | Personal Log
Please Log in to join the conversation.
