understanding

[wil]

I can't understand your way of thinking as my understanding and life experiences get in the way.

Now that isn't entirely true. I can understand you have a different understanding and different life experiences and it leads you to where you are...but I can only go so far.

Guess that is why we all have to meet each other halfway?

 

[citizenzen]

I see what you're saying.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I can't understand your way of thinking as my understanding and life experiences get in the way.

Now that isn't entirely true. I can understand you have a different understanding and different life experiences and it leads you to where you are...but I can only go so far.

Descriptions are often way of taking positions on meanings, and so they may turn into debates. The silent premise underlying most debates is that there is a right and a wrong view and the defense of one will mean a refutation of the other. (Hegel might say that you get a synthesis out of it, if you're lucky and the discussants involved aren't too cranky.)

Depending on how much time one has to waste in a discussion forum on any given day, the polarization thesis/antithesis approach might yield some interesting results, even if they are inconsequential.

 

[Will be]

I can feel your pain. I can share your happiness.

 

[citizenzen]

I can feel your pain. I can share your happiness.

But write a coherent sentence?

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Paladin]

Descriptions are often way of taking positions on meanings, and so they may turn into debates. The silent premise underlying most debates is that there is a right and a wrong view and the defense of one will mean a refutation of the other. (Hegel might say that you get a synthesis out of it, if you're lucky and the discussants involved aren't too cranky.)

Depending on how much time one has to waste in a discussion forum on any given day, the polarization thesis/antithesis approach might yield some interesting results, even if they are inconsequential.

Did you ever get the feeling that the Hegelian Dialectic is something no one is really going for? I mean, it would be a blast if people could approach something like synthesis, that would be in the spirit of inquiry and I only know a few people capable of it.

 

[Nick_A]

Did you ever get the feeling that the Hegelian Dialectic is something no one is really going for? I mean, it would be a blast if people could approach something like synthesis, that would be in the spirit of inquiry and I only know a few people capable of it.

Of course it is impossible because it denies self justification. This is why we are so far from even the conception of a universal language. Such a language threatens our subjective self justification so it is best left unknown.

 

[citizenzen]

Of course it is impossible because it denies self justification. This is why we are so far from even the conception of a universal language. Such a language threatens our subjective self justification so it is best left unknown.

We're still culturally very young and social change takes time (high turnover rate and all).

But I won't completely disagree with you. Just look at the posts denying that one God is the source behind all the world's great religions.

That's going to be a long row.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Did you ever get the feeling that the Hegelian Dialectic is something no one is really going for? I mean, it would be a blast if people could approach something like synthesis, that would be in the spirit of inquiry and I only know a few people capable of it.

For the Hegelian Dialectic method to be productive the antithesis has be one which occurs naturally within, or follows naturally from the thesis. It's just too easy to throw up rhetorical antitheticals which set up the thesis, but effectively skirt any real possibility of synthesis.

Chris

 

[wil]

Simple Explanation Of Hegelian Dialectic Method A brood comb

If I understand correctly. What you are discussing here is determining that everything just is. A nondualistic approach. Not right or wrong, just is.

I can easily wrap my head around "It's all good" While I can't always see it when I'm in it, I can accept that there is a bigger picture and in time, "It's all good" therefor now, "It's all good" even if I don't perceive it.

Occasionally I can get "It just is" nonjudgemental, nondualistic. But usually only briefly.

But there are many who can't understand either of these... which means I have to move off of my base to understand their concepts.

Hence the reason for my OP. Covey's seek first to understand, then to be understood. The one thing I've found in practicing that is that if I do it regularly then once I understand, I know longer feel the need to be understood, as I accept their position and thought is right for them.

Where I often have issues is when I can reach that point, yet the other still feels the need to tell me their position is also right for me, or won't allow that mine is right for me.

Which all seems to culminate in that I am working on being better with the theoretical yet still have issues with the personal.

 

[Thomas]

I can't understand your way of thinking as my understanding and life experiences get in the way.

OK.

Now that isn't entirely true. I can understand you have a different understanding and different life experiences and it leads you to where you are...but I can only go so far.

OK.

Guess that is why we all have to meet each other halfway?

Not necessarily. The assumption is that every given way of thinking and therefore understanding of life is equal to every other. That is not a given.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Guess that is why we all have to meet each other halfway?

Not necessarily. The assumption is that every given way of thinking and therefore understanding of life is equal to every other. That is not a given.

Namaste Thomas,

I'm not making that assumption. I am coming from a space of..Thomas you believe what you believe. I don't believe what you believe, yet I seek to understand what you believe and why you believe what you believe. That doesn't indicate your beleifs are equal, greater or lesser than mine, they exist, and you believe them. Since I can't understand your beliefs, and you can't understand mine, if we are to communicate...we need to meet halfway.

 

[shawn]

Since I can't understand your beliefs, and you can't understand mine, if we are to communicate...we need to meet halfway.

Isn't that the rub.
It would be wonderful to see some even make 1/4 of the way.
I love it when people have open minds....hmmm other thread.

 

[Thomas]

I don't believe what you believe, yet I seek to understand what you believe and why you believe what you believe.

I have never experienced that from you.

All I see is you attempting to undermine what I believe by advancing your theories as facts 'that we all know' on more than one occasion. You continually present a thesis as a fact, as if it is beyond doubt. I think your mind is closed in that regard.

I believe in Scripture, so when the facts don't add up, I get quite perturbed, and cannot rest until I have an answer that I find satisfactory. I just find most of the answers of text criticism unsatisfactory, as they eventually rest of an assumption.

Since I can't understand your beliefs, and you can't understand mine, if we are to communicate...we need to meet halfway.

Not quite. I can understand your beliefs, and I can understand why you can't accept mine.

Thomas

 

[wil]

I have never experienced that from you.

Interesting, would that be my issue or your perception?

I cannot determine what you experience or believe of me. I can only determine what I believe or experience from you.

Is that an unsubstantiated thesis or fact?

 

[Paladin]

Simple Explanation Of Hegelian Dialectic Method A brood comb

If I understand correctly. What you are discussing here is determining that everything just is. A nondualistic approach. Not right or wrong, just is.

I can easily wrap my head around "It's all good" While I can't always see it when I'm in it, I can accept that there is a bigger picture and in time, "It's all good" therefor now, "It's all good" even if I don't perceive it.

Occasionally I can get "It just is" nonjudgemental, nondualistic. But usually only briefly.

But there are many who can't understand either of these... which means I have to move off of my base to understand their concepts.

Hence the reason for my OP. Covey's seek first to understand, then to be understood. The one thing I've found in practicing that is that if I do it regularly then once I understand, I know longer feel the need to be understood, as I accept their position and thought is right for them.

Where I often have issues is when I can reach that point, yet the other still feels the need to tell me their position is also right for me, or won't allow that mine is right for me.

Which all seems to culminate in that I am working on being better with the theoretical yet still have issues with the personal.

You do better with the personal than you might think. There is a drive for people to do this, to proselyte. It is part and parcel of who they think they are and what set of values to which they subscribe, in essence this behavior is part of what just is. Even your annoyance with them is part of what is.

 

[Snoopy]

Guess that is why we all have to meet each other halfway?

Honey, we can't even share a fart.

s.

 

[seattlegal]

Did you ever get the feeling that the Hegelian Dialectic is something no one is really going for? I mean, it would be a blast if people could approach something like synthesis, that would be in the spirit of inquiry and I only know a few people capable of it.

Many children are actually quite adept at this. I think that natural ability can become obscured and forgotten. Gotta find it again.