Posted by
Nick Thompson on
May 16, 2010; 5:54pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/WARNING-Political-Argument-in-Progress-tp5060628p5062258.html
Steve,
re: argument vs discussion
Point taken. I guess the distinction between the two is that in an
argument, each protagonist knows in advance where he hopes to come out,
whereas in a true discussion, nobody knows where they are going to come
out.
I like to be a realist, as you know, and I think people mostly argue, in
the sense that their highest motive is to protect their own minds against
having to change. Changing one's mind on anything important is HARD, NASTY
work, and we all resist it. However, the moment AFTER we have changed our
minds, when we suddenly see the world in a different light and some things
fall into place that didn't before, is like a revelation. It's almost
sexy. Definitely a bifurcation, here.
The trouble with calling these things "discussions" is that it allows us to
pretend to ourselves that our deepest selfprotective instincts are not
engaged, whenever we talk about something important. There is nothing
worse than arguing with somebody who is pretending to be (or worse,
actually is) disaffected. Sophists should be shot!
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (
[hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
> [Original Message]
> From: Steve Smith <
[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
[hidden email]>
> Date: 5/16/2010 8:27:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress
>
> Nick,
>
> Thanks for changing the thread and trying to lay the groundwork
> carefully here.
> > Russ,
> >
> > It is my deepest belief that if our country is to survived, people who
> > disagree need to learn to argue with each other. You and I really
disagree
> > on this one, so on my account, we are obligated to argue.
> >
> I take a slight exception to your use of the term argue, but concede
> that many call "argument" what I call "discussion". I use argument to
> be entirely a device of rhetoric rather than of logic. I am interested
> in rhetoric (my own or others) only insomuch as can be a compelling
> method for constructing alternative hypothesis to consider logically.
>
> I therefore believe that when people disagree significantly on an
> important topic, they are bound to argue as an alternative to logical
> discussion, each simultaneously trying to persuade the other while
> maintaining self-persuasion in the face of what might very well be a
> persuasive alternative argument from the other.
> > On the other hand, I DON'T believe that others should unwillingly be a
> > party to such arguments, so I changed the thread.
> >
> I'm relatively facile with e-mail and threads myself so I find it only a
> minor burden when threads get hijacked, but in the interest of clarity
> and thoughtfulness, I think you have done a good thing here.
> > We obviously agree that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts
> > absolutely. So, we are both made nervous when power starts to
accumulate
> > in small numbers of hands And I bet we believe, both, that having power
> > leads to the accumulation of more of it. .And, we both seem to agree
that
> > dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power are occuring in our
society,
> > right now?
> >
> I would "argue" that power *is* corruption. "power" has a dualism
> which we seem often to ignore, where we use the term "personal power" as
> if it is the same thing as the power you are describing. We speak of
> our innate, inherent ability to make decisions and take action as
> "power" and we then notice that we grant others the right or ability to
> persuade (or intimidate) us in our decisions and (therefore) actions.
> We call that "giving others our power" or more euphemistically,
> "asserting our power". I believe a qualitative thing happens at this
> point and "power" is not equal to "power" even though it seems to be the
> same thing. There is something alchemical that happens when we grant
> others the "use" of our personal "power".
>
> My point is, that all "dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power"
> are the consequence of this alchemical transformation which we all
> volunteer for at some level. What if they held a war and nobody came?
> What if labor simply refused to serve capital. What if capital simply
> refused to serve labor? What would Ghandi do? What if we could all
> stayed home and tended our gardens well?
>
> I believe the rhetoric of our modern political and social discourse is
> flawed to the core on the topic of "power". We treat it with the same
> reverence that we treate "emergence". Most of us aspire to power in
> some way at some time in our life, wanting to be "the boss of other
> people" in some way. Most of us benefit from the power that we inherit
> from the collective we have given over to. We are members of a class
> (many or most of us professional class) in a first world, nominally
> free-market, nominally democratic, nominally representative
> society/culture who benefits significantly from the labors and deference
> of the third world. We enjoy the use of their hands and their raw
> materials (minerals, fuels, plant products) in return for (at best) a
> modest taste of our lifestyle (pop culture, junk food, throw-away
> consumer-goods).
> > OK, so far? Where we seem to disagree is where the dangerous power is
> > accumulating in our society. I think it is in large corporations; you
> > think it is in governments. Still on board?
> >
> I'm not Russ (any of them) but I want to hijack your argument at least a
> little bit, to remind us all that governments (superpowers or 2-bit
> temporary juntas) and corporations (large or small) are precisely
> creatures of collective power and that there is not a magic threshold
> where power starts to corrupt. There may be thresholds where we begin
> to notice, or we begin to be offended (or scared or obviously harmed) by
> the accumulations, but I submit that our conception of power is flawed
> and that Pogo said it all in "We have met the enemy, and they is us".
> We not only submit to these constructions/accumulations of power, we
> aspire to them, we cheer hysterically when our candidate wins, or the
> companies we invest in succeed in hostile takeovers or major deals to
> exploit (gently, cleanly, greenly of course) some newly recognized
> resource in some previously un(der)exploited region of the world.
>
> We think we "must" give over our power because in our vernacular, the
> only way to meet/blunt/turn/reject power is *with power*. Even when we
> seem to be taking our power back, we are being profligate and arbitrary.
> Power to the People! Black Power! Brown Power! White Power!
> GynoPower! PowWow Power! Pow Pow Pow!... Power! Back off, I'm a
> Scientist Power ("I can solve world hunger, I'll just turn them all to
> green glass!")!
>
> We have at least one Aikido practicioner on this list and I think there
> are critical perspectives to be offered by that practice on this topic
> relative to the many other martial arts. For those with an affinity for
> Jui Jitsu or Tae Kwon Do or Kung Fu Fighting (fast as lightning!) or
> Shotokan or ... you know how to use the opponent's power against
> herself, how to focus your power, how to apply your power most
> advantageously... or is there another way? What is the power of "not
> being there" when power is directed at you? Is there a different
> question to which these methods of managing/using power are not relevant?
> > Why don't I stop there, and see if you agree with this characterization
of
> > our disagreement.
> >
> Apologizing for adding a 3rd (and long-winded) voice to what might be a
> complicated enough argument (discussion), I submit that this discussion
> will be served by more clarity about power. The argument of who to
> blame (Gov't or Corp) for our powerlessness has some strong motivation
> (even for me who is trying to offer a different question) but it might
> be moot if we can ask (and answer) the more fundamental questions of how
> (and more key why) we give our power up so thoughtlessly (yet
> self-righteously and with utmost confidence in its effectiveness).
>
> As product consumers we throw our "buying power" around like there is no
> tomorrow... we seek the cheapest price or the "best value" (by some
> arcane measure or another) without (much if any) regard to the hidden
> (social, ecological, ... ) costs. As ideology consumers, we throw our
> "mind share" into the pool even more profiglately. We give over to
> "git er' done" and "hope and change" like sugar or caffiene or nicotine
> or crack cocaine. We demand little of our political candidates except a
> good PR department who can hand us sound-bites, photo-ops, and bumper
> stickers crafted for our degenerate palates. We leave our TV running
> 24/7 on Fox News (or PBS or BBC) and the programmed radio stations in
> our cars (and on our streaming internet radio) are set to various
> Right-Wing Shock-Talk Dipstick (Rush, Savage, O'Reilly, Imus ...)
> stations or alternatively to Pacifica or Air America or NPR and PRN and
> BBC. We know what we believe before we even start talking which we do
> before we start thinking which we do before we start listening which we
> do before we start observing which we do only grudgingly when we think
> we are bored because we have no TV or Radio or Newspaper or Blog (or
> Mail Discussion List) to focus on.
>
> What if we have this entirely backwards? What if we create (we are) our
> own oppressors (Gov't and Corp) only to rail at them (ourselves and each
> other, thinly disguised as "Them!") and use one as the excuse to dump
> our power (economic and political) into the other rather than take the
> excruciatingly simple yet difficult path of seeking to hold our own
> power close and use it wisely within the scope of our limited and frail
> human ability. Gov's and Corp's have no magic answers, they know
> nothing we do not, and are ignorant, unrighteous and unwise by their
> nature. We cannot construct a better Gov or Corp, we can at best, only
> mitigate their worst flaws, serving only to seduce us into believing in
> their wisdom and righteousness (again, some more, forever).
>
> It is always easier to rail (or rant) than it is to think which is
> always easier than to act with deep care. See *me* here ranting and
> railing and thinking. It is Sunday... perhaps I should go and act in my
> life with whatever care and perspective I can muster this day. (Isn't
> there a game on? Shouldn't I be going to church? Don't I need
> something at the mall? I'm sure I haven't checked all my favorite blogs
> yet! I need another cup of coffee, maybe a cigarette, or maybe even
> something juicier!)
>
> Carry On,
> - Steve
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org