Stop arguing!!

coberst

Well-Known Member
Messages
427
Reaction score
0
Points
0
STOP ARGUING!!

I cannot count the number of times that my mother would shout “STOP ARGUING!” at one or more of my siblings and me.

Years later I learned that ‘argument’ had more meaning than was contained in those youthful experiences.

I obtained an engineering degree and then later studied philosophies before I learned the much broader and important meaning of the word ‘argue’. When I studied “Logic 101”, in philosophy class, my worldview expanded significantly. I did not realize until later that this expansion of my worldview was to change my life completely.

It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.

Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:
He attacked my argument.
I have never beaten this guy in an argument.
If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.
I shot down each of his arguments.

We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our “gut feeling” often informs us as to the ‘correctness’ of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?

Metaphors We Live By, a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ‘grounded’ in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.


“The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in the very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them in that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.”—Lakoff and Johnson

Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.

This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.

This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.


What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.


Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?

Another way that argument resembles war is that both in war and in arguments there is a great deal of bluff and bluster with little intellectual activity.



 
Myself, I've been averse to arguments since birth --or perhaps since past lives. I was thinking of starting a thread to address this same issue. These forums present a wonderful opportunity for awakening consciousness, brightening outlooks, or whatever other non-combative metaphoric phrase suits your taste. Far too often someone feels offended then feels the need to offend. And onward goes the cycle. It is important to remember how recent a phenomon these online forums are. If we can't change our behaviour in a context that is only a decade or at most two decades old, what hope do we have of changing our behaviour in contexts as old as parliments, marketplaces, or schools?

Exploration is my approach to the world of knowledge / experience. I'd rather discussions be about exploring topics collaboratively.
 
Myself, I've been averse to arguments since birth --or perhaps since past lives. I was thinking of starting a thread to address this same issue. These forums present a wonderful opportunity for awakening consciousness, brightening outlooks, or whatever other non-combative metaphoric phrase suits your taste. Far too often someone feels offended then feels the need to offend. And onward goes the cycle. It is important to remember how recent a phenomon these online forums are. If we can't change our behaviour in a context that is only a decade or at most two decades old, what hope do we have of changing our behaviour in contexts as old as parliments, marketplaces, or schools?

Exploration is my approach to the world of knowledge / experience. I'd rather discussions be about exploring topics collaboratively.

I think that you are right on the mark!

One very serious problem is that our educational system has taught us something about debate but has left us totally ignorant of dialogic.

I think that our first step is for a significant percentage of our population to become sufficiently intellectually sophisticated as to make many citizens capable of engaging in dialogical reasoning. To do this I think that many citizens must become self-actualizing self-learners when their school daze are over.

Under our normal cultural situation communication means to discourse, to exchange opinions with one another. It seems to me that there are opinions, considered opinions, and judgments. Opinions are a dime-a-dozen. Considered opinions, however, are opinions that have received a considerable degree of thought but have not received special study. A considered opinion starts out perhaps as tacit knowledge but receives sufficient intellectual attention to have become consciously organized in some fashion. Judgments are made within a process of study.

In dialogue, person ‘A’ may state a thesis and in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other.
Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”

“On Dialogue” written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.
 
Hi.
You're probably aware of the role Mikhail Bakhtin has played in the development of a discourse on 'dialogic acts'. Charles Taylor developed the idea into a theory of selfhood that focuses on how people develop their senses of self through activities that involve two or more people acting as one --such as playing tennis, dancing, carrying a baby, or conversing. Yori Lotman explained a facinating semiotic theory of culture in 'Universe of the mind'. In this book he begins by examining how texts are meaning-generating mechanisms and goes on to introduce the concept of 'the semiosphere'.

This sequence from the first page is key to the book and, I think, to the problem of this thread.

thought (content of the message)
|
the encoding mechanism of language
|
the text
|
the decoding mechanism of language
|
thought (content of the message)

The frame of reference for decoding a text is always different from the frame of reference used to encode a text. There is always a degree of misunderstanding, whether communicating in the flesh, on the page, or online.

Lotman also says, "Communication with another person is only possible if there is some degree of common memory" (62). It is mostly through looking at how texts generate meaning by activating common memory that the semiosphere can be conceptualized. He defines the semiosphere as, "the semiotic space necessary for the existence and functioning of languages, not the sum total of different languages; in a sense the semiosphere has a prior existence and is in constant interaction with languages." (123). . . "The semiosphere is the result and the condition for the development of culture; we justify our term by analogy with the biosphere, as Vernadsky defined it, namely the totality and the organic whole of living matter and also the condition for the continuation of life."(125)

If your interested, I'd be happy to collaboratively explore more of the semiosphere. Understanding culture from that perspective has the potential to be very trasformative. For one thing, emphasizing the importance of common memory could advise making education more about exposing youth to the full range of the arts so that they have vividly awake frames of reference and be able to appreciate works of art rather than just say this is right and that is wrong.
 
These forums present a wonderful opportunity for awakening consciousness, brightening outlooks, or whatever other non-combative metaphoric phrase suits your taste. Far too often someone feels offended then feels the need to offend. And onward goes the cycle. It is important to remember how recent a phenomon these online forums are. If we can't change our behaviour in a context that is only a decade or at most two decades old, what hope do we have of changing our behaviour in contexts as old as parliments, marketplaces, or schools?

Exploration is my approach to the world of knowledge / experience. I'd rather discussions be about exploring topics collaboratively.
I agree with this very much.
We all have different points of view and that is a good thing, yet it so often is debased due to emotional and egotistical investments which individuals will have.
I have had discussions with people on occasion where despite the fact that we came from different traditions and had really diverse opinions on some areas we were still able to have very good conversations as there was a key element at work in each, namely an OPEN MIND.
That is so key.
Without it we are hopelessly mired in argument.
And that just breeds discord and all kinds of nasty results.
No really spiritually awakened individual which I have ever encountered ever engages in argument.
It is viewed as counterproductive and quite foolish.
 
I agree with this very much.
We all have different points of view and that is a good thing, yet it so often is debased due to emotional and egotistical investments which individuals will have.
I have had discussions with people on occasion where despite the fact that we came from different traditions and had really diverse opinions on some areas we were still able to have very good conversations as there was a key element at work in each, namely an OPEN MIND.
That is so key.
Without it we are hopelessly mired in argument.
And that just breeds discord and all kinds of nasty results.
No really spiritually awakened individual which I have ever encountered ever engages in argument.
It is viewed as counterproductive and quite foolish.

I disagree.
 
Sancho

I am not aware of the work Mikhail Bakhtin. My interest focuses more on cognitive science that uses our language as a means to examine how we conceptualize our experiences. The conversion of these concepts into a symbol, a word, and the communication of that symbol to another, which then in turn uses the spoken word to activate the concepts of the receiver, is no doubt wrought with possible error.

Cognitive linguistics sees the human language as a neural capacity, which is capable of neurally connecting “parts of the brain concerned with concepts and cognitive functions (attention, memory, information flow) with other parts of the brain concerned with expression.” Grammar is the ability to symbolize concepts. “The constraints on grammar are neural, embodied constraints, not merely abstract formal constraints.”

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes.

Typical-case prototype conceptualization modes are “used in drawing inferences about category members in the absence of any special contextual information. Ideal-case prototypes allow us to evaluate category members relative to some conceptual standard…Social stereotypes are used to make snap judgments…Salient exemplars (well-known examples) are used for making probability judgments…Reasoning with prototypes is, indeed, so common that it is inconceivable that we could function for long without them.”

When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: in, on, about, across from some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner.

When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world.
 
Hi.
The small bit if cognitive science knowledge I have comes from philosophy classes taken a decade ago. One interesting thing I heard is that research on artificial intelligence has caused some to understand mind as existing in the interactions between brains and their surrounding environment's triggers. I coudn't tell you the details on that one though.

Semiotics (which wikipedia has an extensive subsection on) offers ways to analyze the triggers, the symbols, which affect brains. There is a language of traffic signals, a language of archetecture, a language of billboards, a language of fashion, and there is bodylanguage. Semiotics is the decifering of these sign systems.

Yuri Lotman's semiosphere brings all these languages together into one web of inter-related meaning.

Coberst, what you said about a black cat crossing a person's path got me thinking about how much interpretation shapes the reality each of us lives in. Superstition is a style of interpretation, one with old roots, though not so reinforced any more. Superstition was reinforced through folktales and family traditions. But who shapes our styles of interpretation now?
 
Hi. Superstition was reinforced through folktales and family traditions. But who shapes our styles of interpretation now?

I suspect that ideology shapes our styles of interpretaion today.

There appear to be many types of ideologies and I think that the Internet provides a convenient venue for the ‘ad hoc ideology’.

In his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” Freud writes about the characteristics of ideological groups in general and extensively on large artificial groups such as the Church and the Army.

What is striking is that members of these ideological entities often undergo a major change in behavior just by being members of such entities. Under certain conditions individuals who become members of these groups behave differently than they would as individuals. These individuals acquire the characteristics of a ‘psychological group’.

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?


A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility of which contagion is a symptom leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will an discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—that is, a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.
 
My thought is that people are despite the thin veneer of technological and intellectual sophistication just common animals. Animals with the tetchiness, intolerance and competitive streak found in any and every species. To imagine that with a concept or two adopted by an intellectual elite will change that is just plain naive.

People argue because they like to. They want to exhibit assertiveness as a measure of their fitness. It is nothing but common old garden variety Darwinian survival of the fittest playing out behind the safety of keyboard. And for many it is their only counter to the impotence and inneffectuality of their mundane and powerless real lives. Let them vent. If thats what they need to do. After all it is only a few words that hardly anybody will ever read. Nobody cares and all is forgotten after only a few posts anyway.
 
We are animals, but that is just the veneer.
Some never get past that layer though and remain stuck in the idea that that is all we are.
 
We are animals, but that is just the veneer.
Some never get past that layer though and remain stuck in the idea that that is all we are.

I'm afraid you have it ass end forwards. It is our humanity that is the veneer, where and when there is any veneer at all.
 
I'm afraid you have it ass end forwards. It is our humanity that is the veneer, where and when there is any veneer at all.
That would be your opinion on that.
Just like all of us.
I don't concur with it though.
But you can believe what you want, if it gives you comfort or whatever.
 
But you can believe what you want, if it gives you comfort or whatever.

The problem with multiple 'faiths' (which I presume you are talking about) is their mutually exclusivity ........ That may not be in keeping with the spirit of the board or the majority of you. It is a major stumbling-block that cannot be defined out of actual 'existence' (Thankfully I can say "April fools". You can circulate that as either true or false on April fools :~ ). :~
 
The problem with multiple 'faiths' (which I presume you are talking about) is their mutually exclusivity ........ That may not be in keeping with the spirit of the board or the majority of you. It is a major stumbling-block that cannot be defined out of actual 'existence' (Thankfully I can say "April fools". You can circulate that as either true or false on April fools :~ ). :~
Actually I was referring specifically to metaclovis and his/her statement, who seems to believe that we are primarily animals which may acquire the veneer of humanity.
I believe otherwise, that we are spiritual beings who presently abide in animal bodies and we are in a condition of ignorance due to lack of awareness of the bigger picture (a condition which can be remedied to some extent).
So if that idea which metaclovis embraces gives him/her comfort or whatever, then fine, go for it, but it isn't my cup of tea.
People can agree to disagree and still get along.
 
Back
Top