What is our 4T contest about? Can we see it differently?

[Eric the Green]

We face a polarization and conflict in our country. Though essentially beyond the partisan labels, it does cluster around Republicans and Democrats, which we now call red and blue.

What is this contest, or conflict?

I like to see it on many levels. I prefer most of the time to frame it as a contest between ideas, not people. The people on the other side are not my enemies, I like to think. It's the ideas, the delusions and deceptions they hold that must be dispelled.

Bob Butler likes to frame it as a contest between values; we can't hold the values of those we oppose, so we must accept this and accept that people have different values.

I think there's some truth in that, but on the other hand, framing it this way makes it harder to resolve; it says things can't be changed, because values are too hard to change. Whereas if one has a delusion or has been deceived, all one has to do is wake up from it.

Of course, framing the conflict in terms of deceptive ideas, also has its problems. Reading me saying to dispell the deceptions, sounds like I'm saying that I am right and the other person is wrong. Once in a while, a person can be in what's called a contemplative mode, and is willing to listen. In our society today, it appears that less than 10% of the people are capable or willing to listen to the other side. The rest have their minds made up.

When I speak of deceptive ideas, it is not just my ego speaking, because it is not only myself who "knows the truth" and others who don't. It is myself and many others, opposing another and many others. And I like to say that, if I know the truth, it is because I have been open and willing to listen. But the divide remains. If another person is not in contemplative mode, there is little chance I can convince them that I know the truth, and that they are deluded. And they may take is as an insult if I tell them that they have been deceived, and that I know the truth and they don't.

Let's see in my next post if I can frame the contest we are in a little differently.

[SomeGuy]

Yeah, this doesn't sound like your ego talking at all, Eric. 

[Eric the Green]

First of all, let's get back to values. Is it really true that people hold irreconcilable values?

I don't think so. I think values are universal, and that we all hold the same values.

It's not either/or; it's a question of which values are more important to some people rather than others. It's a question of the right balance of values.

It was said by a wise historian than American politics revolves around three contests: rich vs. poor, war vs. peace, and white vs. black (or people of color). These are the prime contests between values. Of course, there's some overlap among these too.

And so on war vs. peace, first of all this concerns both domestic and international war, and the tools of war individual and collective. If we hold war as a value, then we hold self-defense as a positive value. We want to be safe from invaders. We recognize that there are people or animals in the world who might be aggressive and dangerous. On an individual level, that means we have to have guns. On a collective level, it means sometimes we need armies and police and need to go to war.

On the other side is the value of peace. We hold that it is possible for people to live together in peace, and that at bottom we can curtail and transcend our aggressive impulses. The value of peace says we are all one people, and we don't need to harm each other. So, we don't need guns. On an ideal level, we can go beyond war and dissolve the armies, and our police can go without guns too. This is also an issue of freedom vs. slavery. Do some people have a right to exert control over us, or not; legally or illegally? The value of individual vs. collective could be seen as a prime conflict.

Some people are actually aggressive and want control over others. They want to kill animals for fun, or say we need to kill them for food. Others want to rob and even kill people for power, money, revenge or love. They may value their nation and not others. I would say these people have gone overboard on the values of war, and need to remember that they also at bottom value peace; that they know we are one people and part of one larger being. They may also be religious, and thus at least know that this larger being exists. On the other hand, if they are religious, they may also think that their religion is the only valid one and want to impose it on others. This is overvaluing war again.

Some people may say that peace is the only value, and forget the value of war. They may think human beings are perfect, so we don't need war or its tools. They may say we need to tear down all government, because the state enforces laws with violence. They may say we should never go to war even if we are attacked, or even if some violent people are attacking our allies, or trying to wipe out or enslave an entire people who need and ask for our help. I might say they have gone overboard on the value of peace. Especially when those who say we need to tear down the state, then say we still have to over-value war by being armed individually to defend our lives and properties from the war of all against all.

So it's not that we don't all understand the values of war and peace. It's a question of the right balance. I say we need to redress the balance more in favor of peace, and that someday soon we may not need guns individually or collectively. But there's some value in war too, in certain circumstances, individually and collectively. These are values that we all share, so it's not an issue of values, but of which values are uppermost in particular situations. We do understand the values of others. We just need to remember that. Perhaps the conflict and political contest may be a little easier to resolve, then.

What about truth and deception, then? More thoughts on that later may occur to me. And more about the other two prime American issues.

[Eric the Green]

About truth and deception: ultimately we DO need to go beyond our egos, and not just defend the ideas we have said before because we don't want to admit the we are wrong.

We have values, which are universal and which we all share, in varying degrees for each one. We also are fed ideologies, and we accept ideas based on them. They are based on values, but they are political ideas which we think policies must be based on. The important thing as I see it, is to be aware that we hold these ideologies, and be willing to be less attached to them. There is truth in every ideology, to one degree or another. When we make one ideology true, and the opposing ideology false, and defend and accept our ideology in a knee-jerk and unconscious way, that puts our nation in trouble. When we are aware of this, then we can be liberated from the ideology; thus able to see both its value and its limits.

Such ideologies include:

1) racism or nationalism as opposed to multi-culturalism and respect for diversity and social justice. This is related to white vs. people of color
2) militarism vs. pacifism, which relates to the values of peace and war.
3) religious right and cultural traditionalism, vs. secularism and modernism
4) environmentalism vs. technological progress and materialism
5) human rights and democracy vs. authoritarian approaches

and in our society, the chief ideological conflict is:
6) free market, capitalist, trickle-down economics vs. socialism or social welfare programs, equality, etc. This one most relates to the rich vs. poor issue.

On #6 (about which I have also called the capitalist free market side "false ideology #1"), I take the social welfare side more often. But I can respect the virtues of self-reliance, non-dependency, less government, making money through free enterprise, lower taxes, and such. So where is the right balance? I suggest we can only find it if we don't hang on unconsciously and too tightly to one side or the other.

You may disagree with me if I say I'm not doing that. I just want people to let go of the free market ideology as if it were the only correct one, and my observation is that too many people today do this. People who grew up under Reagan or absorbed his ideals are the most likely to do this.

The correct balance must include, as I see it, to understand that government, taxes and redistribution of wealth is needed in some degree. Wealth is power, and too much power in too few hands leads to a society in which most people are struggling just to make a living. That's where I see the balance today. We do depend on each other; we can't all aspire to be independent of each other and hope to have a working civilization. We all need to contribute to society through taxes-- to protect ourselves, each other, and the economy. Concentration and hoarding of unearned and extorted wealth, and lack of regulation on economic behavior, leads to recessions and depressions and to gross inequality and poverty. Humans are not perfect enough yet that we can do without laws and regulations.

Independence and self-reliance are virtues, as well as compassion and fairness. I don't want taxes to be too high, or the government to run all business. Free enterprise allows people to innovate and create wealth on the basis of their own ambition and incentive. Government run enterprises are needed, but some are best left to the private sector. The right balance is needed. And the right balance is not necessarily the current moderate position in politics, if the current balance in a nation is too far to the right or left; today as I see it the balanced position in America is on the left, and pushing things to the left in general makes progress. But sometimes, in some places, progress means correcting policies that went too far in the socialist direction, as for example the revolutions that overthrew the Soviet Empire, and which tried to change China, in the 1989 era.

Can we be free of ideologies as unconsciously-held dogmas, and see instead a good balance of ideas and virtues?

[Marypoza]

(02-07-2017, 12:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We face a polarization and conflict in our country. Though essentially beyond the partisan labels, it does cluster around Republicans and Democrats, which we now call red and blue.

What is this contest, or conflict?

I like to see it on many levels. I prefer most of the time to frame it as a contest between ideas, not people. The people on the other side are not my enemies, I like to think. It's the ideas, the delusions and deceptions they hold that must be dispelled.

Bob Butler likes to frame it as a contest between values; we can't hold the values of those we oppose, so we must accept this and accept that people have different values.

I think there's some truth in that, but on the other hand, framing it this way makes it harder to resolve; it says things can't be changed, because values are too hard to change. Whereas if one has a delusion or has been deceived, all one has to do is wake up from it.

Of course, framing the conflict in terms of deceptive ideas, also has its problems. Reading me saying to dispell the deceptions, sounds like I'm saying that I am right and the other person is wrong. Once in a while, a person can be in what's called a contemplative mode, and is willing to listen. In our society today, it appears that less than 10% of the people are capable or willing to listen to the other side. The rest have their minds made up.

When I speak of deceptive ideas, it is not just my ego speaking, because it is not only myself who "knows the truth" and others who don't. It is myself and many others, opposing another and many others. And I like to say that, if I know the truth, it is because I have been open and willing to listen. But the divide remains. If another person is not in contemplative mode, there is little chance I can convince them that I know the truth, and that they are deluded. And they may take is as an insult if I tell them that they have been deceived, and that I know the truth and they don't.

Let's see in my next post if I can frame the contest we are in a little differently.

-- Eric puh-leeze!  :rofl: You're always right & the other person is wrong, deluded, whatever  :rofl:

[Eric the Green]

When I say "I", in the last paragraph you reacted to, see if you can read it as meaning yourself, or anyone else seeking to convince another of a point of you you have. Did you get anything I said, or just want to :rofl:

I have some strong opinions on the current situation, no doubt, btw. Still, when it comes to communication, it doesn't matter. It depends on how the other person is going to hear what I say. Again, when I say I, I mean anyone. I am not claiming I myself know how to communicate

[Marypoza]

(02-07-2017, 09:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: When I say "I", in the last paragraph you reacted to, see if you can read it as meaning yourself, or anyone else seeking to convince another of a point of you you have. Did you get anything I said, or just want to :rofl:

I have some strong opinions on the current situation, no doubt, btw. Still, when it comes to communication, it doesn't matter. It depends on how the other person is going to hear what I say. Again, when I say I, I mean anyone. I am not claiming I myself know how to communicate

-- l don't recall flat out telling somebody they are wrong or deluded, a you are prone to do. I have strong opinions too, but that doesn't mean ppl who have different povs are wrong, necessarily.

Oh btw, sometimes l throw out stuff l don't necessarily agree with or believe in just to get a discussion going 

[Eric the Green]

Ppl believe in these ideologies, and they conform their opinions to them. Or people have values. We all need to be aware of these and not be dogmatic. There is a spectrum; that's what I'm thinking.

It's not about me or you, here. Or Someguy, or the Kiwi, or anyone else who has opinions about me, or anyone else here.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-07-2017, 09:50 PM)Marypoza Wrote: <snip>

Oh btw, sometimes l throw out stuff l don't necessarily agree with or believe in just to get a discussion going 

?
lol,  IOW trolling?

More info  here.

btw, I think Milo's an ENTP.

[Eric the Green]

(02-07-2017, 09:50 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 09:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: When I say "I", in the last paragraph you reacted to, see if you can read it as meaning yourself, or anyone else seeking to convince another of a point of you you have. Did you get anything I said, or just want to :rofl:

I have some strong opinions on the current situation, no doubt, btw. Still, when it comes to communication, it doesn't matter. It depends on how the other person is going to hear what I say. Again, when I say I, I mean anyone. I am not claiming I myself know how to communicate

-- l don't recall flat out telling somebody they are wrong or deluded, a you are prone to do. I have strong opinions too, but that doesn't mean ppl who have different povs are wrong, necessarily.

Oh btw, sometimes l throw out stuff l don't necessarily agree with or believe in just to get a discussion going 

I think if someone puts out an opinion, they are saying that it is the truth to the best of their knowledge at the time.

Therefore those who disagree, might not have the truth. Or else, there may be some truth to what they say. OR they may have the truth instead, and the first person does not, to a degree. That's because ideas and values come in a spectrum, like the ones I mentioned.

I don't put out ideas or statements I don't agree with. But I often do say things in a dramatic way to stimulate discussion. And anything stated strongly in words, by anyone, is likely to have a shadow, or shades of gray. Because words are blunt instruments. It's this, and not that! But this stimulates discussion, and it's less boring to take a strong stand on something. And then perhaps, in the discussion, a smaller or larger ground somewhere in the middle might happen.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-07-2017, 11:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 09:50 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 09:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: When I say "I", in the last paragraph you reacted to, see if you can read it as meaning yourself, or anyone else seeking to convince another of a point of you you have. Did you get anything I said, or just want to :rofl:

I have some strong opinions on the current situation, no doubt, btw. Still, when it comes to communication, it doesn't matter. It depends on how the other person is going to hear what I say. Again, when I say I, I mean anyone. I am not claiming I myself know how to communicate

-- l don't recall flat out telling somebody they are wrong or deluded, a you are prone to do. I have strong opinions too, but that doesn't mean ppl who have different povs are wrong, necessarily.

Oh btw, sometimes l throw out stuff l don't necessarily agree with or believe in just to get a discussion going 

I think if someone puts out an opinion, they are saying that it is the truth to the best of their knowledge at the time.

Therefore those who disagree, might not have the truth. Or else, there may be some truth to what they say. OR they may have the truth instead, and the first person does not, to a degree. That's because ideas and values come in a spectrum, like the ones I mentioned.

I don't put out ideas or statements I don't agree with. But I often do say things in a dramatic way to stimulate discussion. And anything stated strongly in words, by anyone, is likely to have a shadow, or shades of gray. Because words are blunt instruments. It's this, and not that! But this stimulates discussion, and it's less boring to take a strong stand on something. And then perhaps, in the discussion, a smaller or larger ground somewhere in the middle might happen.

And... there's nothing wrong with tossing chum in to see what sorts of lunkers are to be had.

[Marypoza]

(02-07-2017, 11:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 11:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 09:50 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 09:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: When I say "I", in the last paragraph you reacted to, see if you can read it as meaning yourself, or anyone else seeking to convince another of a point of you you have. Did you get anything I said, or just want to :rofl:

I have some strong opinions on the current situation, no doubt, btw. Still, when it comes to communication, it doesn't matter. It depends on how the other person is going to hear what I say. Again, when I say I, I mean anyone. I am not claiming I myself know how to communicate

-- l don't recall flat out telling somebody they are wrong or deluded, a you are prone to do. I have strong opinions too, but that doesn't mean ppl who have different povs are wrong, necessarily.

Oh btw, sometimes l throw out stuff l don't necessarily agree with or believe in just to get a discussion going 

I think if someone puts out an opinion, they are saying that it is the truth to the best of their knowledge at the time.

Therefore those who disagree, might not have the truth. Or else, there may be some truth to what they say. OR they may have the truth instead, and the first person does not, to a degree. That's because ideas and values come in a spectrum, like the ones I mentioned.

I don't put out ideas or statements I don't agree with. But I often do say things in a dramatic way to stimulate discussion. And anything stated strongly in words, by anyone, is likely to have a shadow, or shades of gray. Because words are blunt instruments. It's this, and not that! But this stimulates discussion, and it's less boring to take a strong stand on something. And then perhaps, in the discussion, a smaller or larger ground somewhere in the middle might happen.

And... there's nothing wrong with tossing chum in to see what sorts of lunkers are to be had.

--exactly Rags.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-07-2017, 11:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: And... there's nothing wrong with tossing chum in to see what sorts of lunkers are to be had.

Well, I disagree with this.  There is something wrong with tossing chum if people care about having serious conversations.  Toss chum on your own thread, please.  Don't go about sabotaging attempts at real conversation.

[understatement] Now, I have my share of disagreements with Eric.  [/understatement]  However, in this case i think he is raising a serious point.  I am dismayed that the first and strongest answering posts took it immediately to personal attacks, and he has drawn little comment other than personal attacks.  That is one reason why conversations on this board and many others go absolutely nowhere.

There is a problem with strong values.  Just as an example, many conservatives will believe that the less regulation and paperwork required by the government, the more the power of the free market will produce a healthy economy.  Many progressives see a too strong division of wealth, and see regulation and paperwork as necessary to building an inclusive, stable and safe economy.  I'll note there are many valid arguments for both positions.  Neither side is flat absolutely correct or incorrect.  Both sides can open history books and show examples of why their beliefs are valid.  Still, many on either side will dismiss the other's examples as meaningless or irrelevant, and push all in for their own perspective.  Facts and Truth can be trivially ignored if they conflict with one's values.

On this particular issue, and on many issues, I believe the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle.  One wants a minimum number of the least intrusive regulations and paperwork, but where they are necessary they should be there.  I'd like to hold conversations about what is necessary, what is excessive, and how to reach an effective balance.  I wish compromise and respect for the other guy's motivation were possible.  But, no, it's becoming about personal attacks, not issues.

And it's not just us amateurs on an obscure internet forum.  The professionals are wallowing in it too.  If Trump sees a poll he doesn't like, it is labeled fake news.  It goes beyond spin into the realm of Big Lies.  If the Democrats see a cabinet appointment they don't like, they will go into personal attack mode as surely as we will.  The recent election was in large part about mutual character assassination of the other candidate.  We recently saw a intense disagreement on whether a Seal mission was a success or a failure.  I'd rather ask if there are meaningful lessons learned.  Can we not repeat the same mistakes?  As one cannot assume there won't be more if different mistakes, are the objectives worth the cost?  But, no, it becomes a battle over who should be required to apologize, who is disrespecting the dead hero, and how well one can exploit a tragedy to discredit political opponents.

Yes, I can share with Eric a desire to change the conversation.  It would help to back away from Big Lies that support one's values to spin which reflects one's values.  Ideally, we might even try for Truth.  It would help to address issues rather than use personal attacks as the first, last and always tactic.  

It would help to throw less chum.

[SomeGuy]

Speak for yourself, chum! 

[Eric the Green]

Maybe it would be nice if we were more chummy. At least, it's an idea.

[Marypoza]

(02-09-2017, 12:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 11:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: And... there's nothing wrong with tossing chum in to see what sorts of lunkers are to be had.

Well, I disagree with this.  There is something wrong with tossing chum if people care about having serious conversations.  Toss chum on your own thread, please.  Don't go about sabotaging attempts at real conversation.

[/understatement] Now, I have my share of disagreements with Eric.  [/understatement]  However, in this case i think he is raising a serious point.  I am dismayed that the first and strongest answering posts took it immediately to personal attacks, and he has drawn little comment other than personal attacks.  That is one reason why conversations on this board and many others go absolutely nowhere.

--uh, mebbe bcuz Eric is guilty of alot of this shit? Maybe that's why ppl here aren't taking this thread seriously? When l posted my original response above l had just come off a thread where Eric called somebody deluded bcuz their pov was different from his. But you have a point, Bob. This thread s/b taken seriously. Sometimes it's just hard to take Eric seriously

Bob Wrote:There is a problem with strong values.  Just as an example, many conservatives will believe that the less regulation and paperwork required by the government, the more the power of the free market will produce a healthy economy.  Many progressives see a too strong division of wealth, and see regulation and paperwork as necessary to building an inclusive, stable and safe economy.  I'll note there are many valid arguments for both positions.  Neither side is flat absolutely correct or incorrect.  Both sides can open history books and show examples of why their beliefs are valid.  Still, many on either side will dismiss the other's examples as meaningless or irrelevant, and push all in for their own perspective.  Facts and Truth can be trivially ignored if they conflict with one's values.

On this particular issue, and on many issues, I believe the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle.  One wants a minimum number of the least intrusive regulations and paperwork, but where they are necessary they should be there.  I'd like to hold conversations about what is necessary, what is excessive, and how to reach an effective balance.  I wish compromise and respect for the other guy's motivation were possible.  But, no, it's becoming about personal attacks, not issues.

And it's not just us amateurs on an obscure internet forum.  The professionals are wallowing in it too.  If Trump sees a poll he doesn't like, it is labeled fake news.  It goes beyond spin into the realm of Big Lies.  If the Democrats see a cabinet appointment they don't like, they will go into personal attack mode as surely as we will.  The recent election was in large part about mutual character assassination of the other candidate.  We recently saw a intense disagreement on whether a Seal mission was a success or a failure.  I'd rather ask if there are meaningful lessons learned.  Can we not repeat the same mistakes?  As one cannot assume there won't be more if different mistakes, are the objectives worth the cost?  But, no, it becomes a battle over who should be required to apologize, who is disrespecting the dead hero, and how well one can exploit a tragedy to discredit political opponents.

Yes, I can share with Eric a desire to change the conversation.  It would help to back away from Big Lies that support one's values to spin which reflects one's values.  Ideally, we might even try for Truth.  It would help to address issues rather than use personal attacks as the first, last and always tactic.  

It would help to throw less chum.

--mebbe chum is the wrong term. How about devil's advocate? To get a discussion going?

[SomeGuy]

(02-09-2017, 01:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Maybe it would be nice if we were more chummy. At least, it's an idea.

What, I behave here exactly the same way I do with my chums.  Probably why I don't have too many. 

I thoroughly enjoy coming here to point out the deceptive ideas and moral delusions everybody else is subject to.  It's a labor of love, really. 

[Eric the Green]

(02-09-2017, 01:18 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 01:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Maybe it would be nice if we were more chummy. At least, it's an idea.

What, I behave here exactly the same way I do with my chums.  Probably why I don't have too many. 

I thoroughly enjoy coming here to point out the deceptive ideas and moral delusions everybody else is subject to.  It's a labor of love, really. 

Well, we share that in common. Apparently we have different ideas on what those deceptive ideas and delusions are.

[SomeGuy]

(02-09-2017, 01:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 01:18 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 01:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Maybe it would be nice if we were more chummy. At least, it's an idea.

What, I behave here exactly the same way I do with my chums.  Probably why I don't have too many. 

I thoroughly enjoy coming here to point out the deceptive ideas and moral delusions everybody else is subject to.  It's a labor of love, really. 

Well, we share that in common. Apparently we have different ideas on what those deceptive ideas and delusions are.

I know Eric, but I'm still willing to help you out. 

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-09-2017, 01:16 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 12:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 11:51 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: And... there's nothing wrong with tossing chum in to see what sorts of lunkers are to be had.

Well, I disagree with this.  There is something wrong with tossing chum if people care about having serious conversations.  Toss chum on your own thread, please.  Don't go about sabotaging attempts at real conversation.

[/understatement] Now, I have my share of disagreements with Eric.  [/understatement]  However, in this case i think he is raising a serious point.  I am dismayed that the first and strongest answering posts took it immediately to personal attacks, and he has drawn little comment other than personal attacks.  That is one reason why conversations on this board and many others go absolutely nowhere.

--uh, mebbe bcuz Eric is guilty of alot of this shit? Maybe that's why ppl here aren't taking this thread seriously? When l posted my original response above l had just come off a thread where Eric called somebody deluded bcuz their pov was different from his. But you have a point, Bob. This thread s/b taken seriously. Sometimes it's just hard to take Eric seriously

Can't argue with this.  If an extreme partisan does little but throw chum, would anyone expect or notice a serious attempt at conversation?  If the water is loaded with blood and chum, what is a poor shark to do?  I seriously sympathize with a desire to change the conversation, to find a new angle, but a lot of folks are so extremely committed to the old angles that they have squandered any potential to have anyone with conflicting values take them seriously.

(02-09-2017, 01:16 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

Bob Wrote:It would help to throw less chum.

--mebbe chum is the wrong term. How about devil's advocate? To get a discussion going?

Better.  I don't think our problem is starting discussions, though.  The problem is getting serious conversations with both sides listening.  Controversy for controversy's sake might not be the way to go at this point.