On the sub, there appear to be negative (emphasis on the 2nd syllable) or subtractive dialogues and, on the opposite spectrum, dialogues that are essentially constructive. I'll illustrate.
Negative
* Claim is made
* Disagreement alone is sought and stated or question asked in order to find a disagreement.
* Debate ensures
Constructive
* Claim is made.
* Respondent finds common ground, tries to build a framework for mutual understanding.
* Dialogue ensures attempting to reconcile perceived differences so that a wider picture of reality can be modeled.
I wanted to make this distinction because it occurred to me that the almost compulsive MO of participants here (aside from gaslighting) is to seek points of conflict and then entrench deep into perceived binary and opposing positions--but which are often merely two models for an ultimately similar set of ideas.
One reason I think the negative approach is common is that Zen as a practice is often highly intellectually minimalistic or reductive; the process of advancement in Zen often involves shedding ideas. On closer inspection though, this has nothing to do with compulsively creating arguments, a project that actually proliferates discursive thinking rather than solving or dissolving it.
"A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window."
"Every time someone puts an objection to me, I want to say: 'OK, OK, let's go on to something else.' Objections have never contributed anything."
Submitted November 17, 2018 at 06:37AM by Leif- https://ift.tt/2Frf7QW
No comments:
Post a Comment