Ted, you mentioned "[getting] to the point quicker." Other than the
enjoyment of a thoughtful and engaging conversation I'm not sure there is
a point to my questions
Ted replies -
Right. Sorry, I realized afterwards that it's not about speed. I'd do
better to slow myself down. I wrote a 1500 word reply the other day, but did
not send it, as I felt it repeated some mistakes I made in an earlier attempt
to communicate. Too much, too fast.
I am reminded of that concept of cognitive resonance. It is just a way of
thinking about your feelings about your thoughts.... I guess. It says:
1) If you generally respect a person, and agree with them on a significant
issue, there is a cognitive resonance - a harmony.
2) If you generally respect a person, but disagree with them on a
significant issue, there is a dissonance - a dis-harmony.
3) If you generally do not respect a person, but agree with them on a
significant issue, there is a cognitive dissonance - a dis-harmony.
4) If you generally do not respect a person, and also disagree with them on
a significant issue, there is again a cognitive resonance - a harmony.
When communicating with you, I have felt an increasing sense of 2)
I've come to respect your integrity amidst much disagreement.
It is simply a frustrating feeling, but this is to be expected. No fault,
As the MoQ points out, we need to keep the social level stable, so that we
can continue the intellectual discussion. With too much dynamic interaction,
we could lose the static structure we need to make progress toward a better
(more harmonic) state.
We need the freedom to let our ideas out, or it would be dull, and
worthless. But we also do not want too much freedom. We need social constraints like
respect and patience, too much freedom would cause a break down, a loss of
the platform we now have.
So, we go forward into the unknown. There is tomorrow, and we have no idea
what could come.
Maybe I'll get back to those 1500 words someday, and make them better.