Out of pure chance, I picked up this book, Triggering Town", and in just a few short sentences, both of my last two posts were devastatingly rebutted. Of course, I subscribe to the tenant that two contradictory views can both be true, so while I stand behind my posts, I also have to say, I absolutely believe these statements to be 100% true. For context, the book is from lectures on writing poetry:
The Case for Thinking Small:
"The starting point is fixed to give the mind an operating base, and the mind expands from there. Often, if the triggering subject is big (love, death, faith) rather than localized and finite, the mind tends to shrink. Sir Alexander Fleming observed some mold, and a few years later we had a cure for gonorrhea. But what if the British government had told him to find a cure for gonorrhea? He might have worried so much he would not have noticed the mold. Think small. If you have a big mind, that will show itself. If you can't think small, try philosophy or social criticism."
By the way the poem, the author is describing is worth publishing here:
Rattlesnake
I found him sleepy in the heat
And dust of of a gopher burrow,
Coiled in loose folds upon silence
In a pit of the noonday hillside.
I saw the wedged bulge
Of the head hard as a fist.
I remembered his delicate ways:
The mouth of a cat's mouth yawning.
I crushed him deep in dust,
And heard the loud seethe of life
In the dead beads of the tail
Fade, as wind fades
From the wild grain of the hill.
And finally, why you should not argue:
"In a sense, I hope I don't teach you how to write but how to teach yourself how to write. At all times keep your crap detector on. If I say something that helps, good. If what I say is of no help, let it go. Don't start arguments. They are futile and take us away from our purpose. As Yeats noted, your important argments are with yourself. If you don't agree with me, don't listen. Think about something else."
Yep, the most important arguments are with yourself. Life is a personal journey. We can throw out our own nuggets to others, but at the end of the day, its up to each of us to sort through the nonsense to find out what works for us...
Hmmm... how much time do I waste on arguments that are "futile and take us away from our purpose".
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Why I Debate
For those of you who have followed my on-line presence at all know that I love the debate, and lately I've spent a lot of time in the political arena. I feel some amount of guilt about it, but at the same time I realize there are some benefits to it as well. But it got me thinking how pervasive this need to debate is and to me it seems like its part of the human condition. This propensity toward conflict and competition. Wars are even to some extent a form of debate at a large scale.
Obviously, I have experience with debate almost as far back as I can remember: with my parents over what to me were arbitrary rules, or with friends over sports teams or favorite athletes or what girl was the hottest at my school.
But now with technology the terms and means of the debate have amplified and have grown in its pervasiveness. I remember in high school with my very far right ideology and some notion of my far away sister's far left ideology reading an op ed in my local Yuma Daily Sun wishing I had the energy to cut out the article and send it to them, sure I would convince them my view was right.
Imagine how I'm affected now, when I am bombarded by so many incredibly high quality opinions, following as I do blogs written by the smartest folks in their fields with the tools to distribute links to those blogs via twitter (which so far I haven't participated in), facebook (which I've recently jumped in), yahoogroup mailing lists (I've started a political mailing list something like ten years ago with a handful of my friends and its still going strong), and now via comments on my blog.
But what is all of this debate getting me? Definitely it consumes a massively finite resource, my time. And I'm not getting any financial benefit from it. Am I really making the world a better place by pushing my opinions on onto the world? Am I improving myself?
Well, I don't have the answer to any of those questions. But at the very least, its my hobby, and its a hobby I need to do a better job at constraining so it doesn't crowd out other stuff I really should be engaged in but perhaps don't enjoy as much or at least doesn't have near the psychological pull as this does.
But at its very core, debate and discussion, when done right, is absolutely essential. In my work context, we're engaged in the creative, at times difficult job to produce software that is easy to use, highly available, and highly profitable (meaning desirable by large numbers of people). To get there, you simply cannot lock yourself in a room and pound out code. I'm at my best when I'm constantly engaged with my co-workers discussing problems, arguing design strategies.
It works incredibly well when you're able to suspend your ego and are willing to concede when you feel another's opinions are probably better than yours. More often, the discussion extends my thinking. Ideas come to me that never would have come in isolation and not just ideas that are explicitly stated by a colleague. Many times, ideas are triggered by something they've said. Its true synergy, and its intoxicating and exciting.
What's happening here, though, is that we're not engaged abstractly. We're actively struggling and working in the domain, but at the same time step back and engage. I think actually grinding through difficult work first before, after and while you discuss keeps you grounded and humbled.
I love to read about politics. I'm not completely sure why. Health care and our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are completely important. And part of my duty as a citizen of a democratic country is to stay engaged so that my elected officials are held accountable. Part of staying engaged is both reading what the experts and reporters are writing, but testing my assumptions through discussion with my friends, my fellow citizens. Facebook has been a surprising fruitful source of this kind of debate, although I feel slightly guilty bating folks into a discussion.
In my experience with political debate, I'm not sure I have ever changed someone else's mind. But, why I've never explicitly conceded a position while in the throws of a debate. Usually, for me, over time, having the opportunity to hear counter-arguments allows me to appreciate someone else's point of view. And there are times when I have changed positions, or at least moved to a more full, sophisticated point of view on the issue.
I am of the belief (to some extent anyway) that at their core most people essentially agree on most issues. We tend to focus extreme attention on those points where we disagree. Or hold tight to a narrow (although legitimate) point of view without allowing ourselves to understand that most issues are complex enough to allow both people to be right even though they seem to hold contradictory positions.
For me, though, the act of discussion is highly valuable for me. It increases my own understanding of the issue. Especially when it comes into direct conflict with someone else's. When they challenge my assumptions, I'm forced to do research, to validate assumptions. I'm forced to think through my talking points more carefully, compare them with my own experiences, data I've read in the past. My understanding grows.
Finally, I've been thinking a bit about religious debate. I went on my mission in Alabama, and I had many opportunities to engage with Christian fundamentalist who were convinced that the tenants of the Mormon faith were dragging me and my fellow members to hell. And I loved the debate and had a difficult time just letting stuff go. I would hold on to investigators far too long until they basically had to tell me explicitly not to come back.
But thing about religious faith (and its somewhat true about politics as well by the way), is that its an individual and highly personal pursuit. You can't really argue faith. But you can discuss faith. That is why testimony meetings are such a central tenant to the Mormon faith. That's why missionaries are counceled to both teach and to testify. In some sense its a debate I guess, but its more of a discussion, or really its a personal expression.
Religion at its core is a show and tell. We are all spiritual beings and we all have a variety of spiritual experiences. And I think the act of expressing ourselves to someone else intensifies our own faith in many of the same ways engaging in a political discussion with someone else increases or understanding of the issue.
With religious debate, I think there's plenty of room to get into political like discussions, looking at historical data, scripture, personal experience. But at its core, its a spiritual engagement and if you lose that, you miss out on the benefits of the discussion as well.
In debate, its always important to listen to the other side, "to seek first to understand" if I can borrow from Covey. In faith based engagement, listening with an open heart is vital. Because you need a sense of openness and honesty. Its an expression, and to increase the learning experience, the act of expression must be honest. Both sides benefit as a result.
I think this sort of engagement is essential and vital for everyone of any faith. And it would do us a lot of good if there was more opportunity to engage across religious lines, although admittedly its a challenging thing to do.
But I'm convinced that engagement and debate is vitally important. But I think the benefits are enhance when its coupled with real struggle and hard work. In my work environment, discussion is vital but only when coupled by my individual hard work. Similarly, we should be engaged in the personal struggle for spiritual and intellectual growth both as individual human beings and as citizens in our community and country. And as we couple our personal work with an engagement with others, we can hopefully stay humble and willing to learn from each other. I think those are the conditions required to justify debate. Conditions I probably need to meet more often.
Obviously, I have experience with debate almost as far back as I can remember: with my parents over what to me were arbitrary rules, or with friends over sports teams or favorite athletes or what girl was the hottest at my school.
But now with technology the terms and means of the debate have amplified and have grown in its pervasiveness. I remember in high school with my very far right ideology and some notion of my far away sister's far left ideology reading an op ed in my local Yuma Daily Sun wishing I had the energy to cut out the article and send it to them, sure I would convince them my view was right.
Imagine how I'm affected now, when I am bombarded by so many incredibly high quality opinions, following as I do blogs written by the smartest folks in their fields with the tools to distribute links to those blogs via twitter (which so far I haven't participated in), facebook (which I've recently jumped in), yahoogroup mailing lists (I've started a political mailing list something like ten years ago with a handful of my friends and its still going strong), and now via comments on my blog.
But what is all of this debate getting me? Definitely it consumes a massively finite resource, my time. And I'm not getting any financial benefit from it. Am I really making the world a better place by pushing my opinions on onto the world? Am I improving myself?
Well, I don't have the answer to any of those questions. But at the very least, its my hobby, and its a hobby I need to do a better job at constraining so it doesn't crowd out other stuff I really should be engaged in but perhaps don't enjoy as much or at least doesn't have near the psychological pull as this does.
But at its very core, debate and discussion, when done right, is absolutely essential. In my work context, we're engaged in the creative, at times difficult job to produce software that is easy to use, highly available, and highly profitable (meaning desirable by large numbers of people). To get there, you simply cannot lock yourself in a room and pound out code. I'm at my best when I'm constantly engaged with my co-workers discussing problems, arguing design strategies.
It works incredibly well when you're able to suspend your ego and are willing to concede when you feel another's opinions are probably better than yours. More often, the discussion extends my thinking. Ideas come to me that never would have come in isolation and not just ideas that are explicitly stated by a colleague. Many times, ideas are triggered by something they've said. Its true synergy, and its intoxicating and exciting.
What's happening here, though, is that we're not engaged abstractly. We're actively struggling and working in the domain, but at the same time step back and engage. I think actually grinding through difficult work first before, after and while you discuss keeps you grounded and humbled.
I love to read about politics. I'm not completely sure why. Health care and our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are completely important. And part of my duty as a citizen of a democratic country is to stay engaged so that my elected officials are held accountable. Part of staying engaged is both reading what the experts and reporters are writing, but testing my assumptions through discussion with my friends, my fellow citizens. Facebook has been a surprising fruitful source of this kind of debate, although I feel slightly guilty bating folks into a discussion.
In my experience with political debate, I'm not sure I have ever changed someone else's mind. But, why I've never explicitly conceded a position while in the throws of a debate. Usually, for me, over time, having the opportunity to hear counter-arguments allows me to appreciate someone else's point of view. And there are times when I have changed positions, or at least moved to a more full, sophisticated point of view on the issue.
I am of the belief (to some extent anyway) that at their core most people essentially agree on most issues. We tend to focus extreme attention on those points where we disagree. Or hold tight to a narrow (although legitimate) point of view without allowing ourselves to understand that most issues are complex enough to allow both people to be right even though they seem to hold contradictory positions.
For me, though, the act of discussion is highly valuable for me. It increases my own understanding of the issue. Especially when it comes into direct conflict with someone else's. When they challenge my assumptions, I'm forced to do research, to validate assumptions. I'm forced to think through my talking points more carefully, compare them with my own experiences, data I've read in the past. My understanding grows.
Finally, I've been thinking a bit about religious debate. I went on my mission in Alabama, and I had many opportunities to engage with Christian fundamentalist who were convinced that the tenants of the Mormon faith were dragging me and my fellow members to hell. And I loved the debate and had a difficult time just letting stuff go. I would hold on to investigators far too long until they basically had to tell me explicitly not to come back.
But thing about religious faith (and its somewhat true about politics as well by the way), is that its an individual and highly personal pursuit. You can't really argue faith. But you can discuss faith. That is why testimony meetings are such a central tenant to the Mormon faith. That's why missionaries are counceled to both teach and to testify. In some sense its a debate I guess, but its more of a discussion, or really its a personal expression.
Religion at its core is a show and tell. We are all spiritual beings and we all have a variety of spiritual experiences. And I think the act of expressing ourselves to someone else intensifies our own faith in many of the same ways engaging in a political discussion with someone else increases or understanding of the issue.
With religious debate, I think there's plenty of room to get into political like discussions, looking at historical data, scripture, personal experience. But at its core, its a spiritual engagement and if you lose that, you miss out on the benefits of the discussion as well.
In debate, its always important to listen to the other side, "to seek first to understand" if I can borrow from Covey. In faith based engagement, listening with an open heart is vital. Because you need a sense of openness and honesty. Its an expression, and to increase the learning experience, the act of expression must be honest. Both sides benefit as a result.
I think this sort of engagement is essential and vital for everyone of any faith. And it would do us a lot of good if there was more opportunity to engage across religious lines, although admittedly its a challenging thing to do.
But I'm convinced that engagement and debate is vitally important. But I think the benefits are enhance when its coupled with real struggle and hard work. In my work environment, discussion is vital but only when coupled by my individual hard work. Similarly, we should be engaged in the personal struggle for spiritual and intellectual growth both as individual human beings and as citizens in our community and country. And as we couple our personal work with an engagement with others, we can hopefully stay humble and willing to learn from each other. I think those are the conditions required to justify debate. Conditions I probably need to meet more often.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
VP Debate
Sarah Palin owes Gwen Ifill a big basket of roses because she saved Palin's national career ambitions tonight.
No follow up questions, no calling her out for blatantly avoiding the question.
I know debates are about talking points, but Palin had like 5 to 10 talking points drilled into her the past couple of weeks, and she turned to them over and over and over and over again.
I have never seen anything like it actually.
When she wasn't doing that, she would return to the handful of topics she actually knows about: her family, Alaska, drilling for oil.
But the bar was low for Palin. She didn't give any jaw dropping stupidity tonight that she showed in the Couric interviews. But of course, she really wasn't given an opportunity to hang herself either. No rope, just softballs.
It was almost as if Fox news was doing the interview.
To be fair, Biden got the same softball treatment. But at least Biden took advantage of the time he was given to provide some substance.
Look, I like Palin. She has obvious talent and intelligence and loads of potential. She's obviously feisty, and given time to study and internalize national issues, I'm sure she would be a great spokes woman for the next generation of conservative ideas. But there's two problems, the next generation of conservative ideas don't exist, and Palin sure hasn't been internalizing anything beyond local Alaska politics.
Quite simply, it's just mind-bogglingly obvious that she's not ready for the big stage.
This is an indictment on McCain, not Palin. Palin was used by McCain as a gimmick. It was a despicable and selfish thing to do and it had (and still might) have the consequence of ruining Palin's national career.
But Palin (with a big assist from Iffil) got a pass tonight. McCain will probably lock her up as much as possible until November.
And I guess it is for the best. McCain/Palin loses, Palin goes away for a while, maybe resurfacing in about 8 years a new person, her own person.
By the way, it would be a national nightmare if McCain/Palin won this way. No way in my worse dreams could I imagine it, but it would really be mind boggling if McCain could run a presidential campaign purely on gimmicks and not a lick of substance and still win.
You would have to be a complete partisan hack or just not be paying close attention not to see this.
Unfortunately, most Americans are probably in one of these two categories, which is why this McCain is still hanging around.
No follow up questions, no calling her out for blatantly avoiding the question.
I know debates are about talking points, but Palin had like 5 to 10 talking points drilled into her the past couple of weeks, and she turned to them over and over and over and over again.
I have never seen anything like it actually.
When she wasn't doing that, she would return to the handful of topics she actually knows about: her family, Alaska, drilling for oil.
But the bar was low for Palin. She didn't give any jaw dropping stupidity tonight that she showed in the Couric interviews. But of course, she really wasn't given an opportunity to hang herself either. No rope, just softballs.
It was almost as if Fox news was doing the interview.
To be fair, Biden got the same softball treatment. But at least Biden took advantage of the time he was given to provide some substance.
Look, I like Palin. She has obvious talent and intelligence and loads of potential. She's obviously feisty, and given time to study and internalize national issues, I'm sure she would be a great spokes woman for the next generation of conservative ideas. But there's two problems, the next generation of conservative ideas don't exist, and Palin sure hasn't been internalizing anything beyond local Alaska politics.
Quite simply, it's just mind-bogglingly obvious that she's not ready for the big stage.
This is an indictment on McCain, not Palin. Palin was used by McCain as a gimmick. It was a despicable and selfish thing to do and it had (and still might) have the consequence of ruining Palin's national career.
But Palin (with a big assist from Iffil) got a pass tonight. McCain will probably lock her up as much as possible until November.
And I guess it is for the best. McCain/Palin loses, Palin goes away for a while, maybe resurfacing in about 8 years a new person, her own person.
By the way, it would be a national nightmare if McCain/Palin won this way. No way in my worse dreams could I imagine it, but it would really be mind boggling if McCain could run a presidential campaign purely on gimmicks and not a lick of substance and still win.
You would have to be a complete partisan hack or just not be paying close attention not to see this.
Unfortunately, most Americans are probably in one of these two categories, which is why this McCain is still hanging around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)