“Opinions, suggestion and determination”

 

For the purpose of sound reason, I’d like to talk about opinions and suggestion… and how there are (possibly) different reasons we can believe as we do- even though we are in the same species. I would also like to further define some variations to these thoughts I’ll expose… some for the practicality of penchant to any given moment and the inclination (or bias) we use to form the basis for them to be so settled or unsettled. When it comes to mood and an emotional response, this is not where reason comes to play and would not count for anything of value to even suggest it would.

Opinion is to self conviction what indifference is to discredit. Why must it be assumed because one has a different opinion there is then an adversarial role to play?This positional response is one that would be based on the perception of comparison… and this can only be a self realized state, one that maintains a specific bias or dogma, of indifference to anything that would then be perceived. If I were to place an apple and an orange on a table it is then reasonable we might compare them to one another… seeing they are not the same and are obviously DIFFERENT. Can one conclude there has been an attack from this difference of fruit being placed on the table at the same time… NO.

Reaction is then the fulcrum to the reason people do what they do and not the motivating factor of influential information. To extrapolate further, when someone is candid or direct (self assured)… it does not mean there is cause to assume the worst, thinking a person is trying to force upon another their own views… or the contrast between the two is an attack- least of all a personal one.  Also, when vagueness or ambiguity get tossed in to the ring, the whims of notion take a front seat, not a back seat, to reasons for why someone reacts in the manner they do. This is found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Psychology (under vagueness).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/#PhiChaPosVag

 

Most philosophers doubt whether precise analytical tools fit vague arguments. H. G. Wells was amongst the first to suggest that we must moderate the application of logic:

Every species is vague, every term goes cloudy at its edges, and so in my way of thinking, relentless logic is only another name for stupidity—for a sort of intellectual pigheadedness. If you push a philosophical or metaphysical enquiry through a series of valid syllogisms—never committing any generally recognized fallacy—you nevertheless leave behind you at each step a certain rubbing and marginal loss of objective truth and you get deflections that are difficult to trace, at each phase in the process. Every species waggles about in its definition, every tool is a little loose in its handle, every scale has its individual.—First and Last Things (1908)

 

As it then relates to reason, for the sake of argument, in favor of one opinion vs. another (a stance perceived as an attack)… we come across the term,”Inquiry resistance,” and the use of borderline cases. This is also from “the SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Psychology) and seen below…

Absolute borderline cases are targeted by Charles Sander Peirce’s entry for ‘vague’ in the 1902 Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology:

A proposition is vague when there are possible states of things concerning which it is intrinsically uncertain whether, had they been contemplated by the speaker, he would have regarded them as excluded or allowed by the proposition. By intrinsically uncertain we mean not uncertain in consequence of any ignorance of the interpreter, but because the speaker’s habits of language were indeterminate. (Peirce 1902, 748)

 

As it applies directly to the situation I find myself in: with a complaint having been made against me (for the sake of difference), the use of a comparison assumed to be used as a means to claim and justify an attack (a personal one) and the vagueness of rules implemented (used to confine or restrict one’s actions… so as not to offend anyone) and the variables here are staggering. This takes more to assumption than it does to the reality of a thing, and the reality of it is based on an assumption of “a personal attack;” which when seen in the light of this truth is the truth of DIFFERENCE alone and cannot or should not be used as the basis for it to begin with.

When it comes to creativity, and creativity can be defined as:”The use of the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of artistic work.” To circumvent the possibility of someone having an imagination different from another (or perceiving things differently than another) is to find DIFFERENCE is then not tolerated for the sake of it being DIFFERENT. I don’t think we have to agree on everything but to use feelings of an attack, having been perceived (imagined), is a stretch to limit another for the differences we all have in common… the differences that make us all human. For though there may be differences to each of us (even to what we believe or don’t believe) and it is found in these differences that grants us a view to what makes us special and unique in and of ourselves. To cry foul (for the sake of difference) is to attempt to stifle the very creativity we all have and are capable of… if taken to an extreme view or limitation.

 

In the RB rules it says: focus on the topic but when the topic is perceived as a personal view (which is, and could include, one’s viewpoint) is when any DIFFERENCE to this viewpoint will be seen as an attack on them PERSONALLY. I think it off track to a creative site, such as this one (RB), to then limit efforts of difference (we are talking creativity here) and the sharing of our differences be subject to another’s disagreement;  therefore concealing or removing (by firm objection/complaint) and openness desired is then ground to a halt. We should not fear our differences, nor the expression of them, or we will absolutely restrict any form of creativity one can imagine here… and isn’t that the whole purpose here- to create? I have one last thought (form of creative expression) to add here, and it is this…

To fear difference is foolishness… the full benefits of this life are learned here, it is in understanding our differences we actually gain the chance to see commonality- unless we ignorantly lash out at someone for: being different, seeing things differently, expressing these differences or living differently. The biggest mistake anyone can make is to assume from expression of difference alone it is “a personal attack” (or to claim it so) for to do this must be seen as a comparative stance… one where the party to complain attempts to moderate from a position of weakest power assumed their own. The smallest mistake… one slip of rationalizing from a position such as that; which steals the understanding afforded any involved, can now be to assume control over another (when acted on)- leaving anyone without the capacity to: explain further, defend their position, show where their opinion is based on facts (and not simply notions) and truly incapacitates an option of and for creativity to continue. There you have it… my opinion, and the RB rule book says I have the right to express my opinion- or none of us do.

Russ

P.S. to think this all came about from my wishing to share Jesus to those who might read it… and see why love is personal to me. Where a person’s heart is will be found what they treasure most in this life. I firmly believe it is our differences that should pull us together… not force us apart.

About these ads