Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:16:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1124 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
<snip>
>
> I am one of the people that I think Dave is talking about. And I don't know
> how to correct it. My perception is that in threads on fairly disparate
> topics in which both he and I have been involved, he has advanced arguments
> that look like:
>
> Clearly the snozzblat isn't purple because: a) I've never seen a
> purple snozzblat, b) little fairies told my friend that snozzblats can't be
> purple, c) purple isn't really a color anyway, and d) to top it all off, that's
> not a snozzblat, it's a snazzblot.
I love purple--is my favourite colour--coincidental that my high school
colours happened to be purple and white! :) If you want to get really
confused, I am technically colourblind.
The colourblind thing, I may add, I didn't know until I was 21 when I tried
to join the armed forces--the very last question, after a 2 week ordeal of
physical testing and exams and medical testing and such like, was "What do
you see on this card?" when the doc held up a card with a bunch of coloured
dots on it--I said "I see a bunch of coloured dots" They said "Use your
imagination!" I assured them that I was, and further went on to point out,
accurately, what the colour of each dot was, but I still saw only a bunch of
coloured dots instead of, say, a number 6 hidden in there... so I went to a
different armed forces base to take what they call a lantern test, and it
turns out that on a scale of 1 to 5, I have a CV of 3--right on the border
of being truly colourblind and if you want to be a scuba diver in the C.A.F.
(which is why I was joining the Canadian Armed Forces to begin with) you are
automatically enrolled as a bombs technician and if someone wants you to
snip the green wire instead of the red one, and you're colourblind--well,
that's probably not a good thing.
I could, they said, be a chef or a pastor, neither of which appealed to me
at the time--I still can't cook, and my witnessing for God does leave a
little to be desired.
So I didn't get into the C.A.F., and I'm still pretty much colourblind,
though it really doesn't appear to hamper my daily dealings with the world.
And I still like purple. Which then brings into the debate the idea about
being 'blinded' to something--I have learned, for example, that if I see
something that is green, I cannot guarantee it's green, for I *am*
colourblind. In other words, I wouldn't 'bet the farm' on being absolutely
certain that something is the colour I think it is, and I will rely on other
people's colour vision, for others would not have that blindness about them.
But improper colour vision, as I stated earlier, will not be a huge negative
impact as to how I conduct my affairs, nor does it impact on how others
relate to me, in daily life--the red light is at the top, the green light is
at the bottom, and the amber is in the middle (as long as I'm not driving in
some of those wacky US places that put stop lights sideways... ;) )
But the colours I perceive are going to be different than what others
perceive. Why? Because my eyes have the flaw, and therefore my truth of
colours is suspect, and others (and by others I mean anyone who isn't
colourblind) do not have this flaw.
I also remember reading about a philosophical debate about 'do we all see
colours the same' (again, all non-colourblind people)-- do we all see red as
red? Biology tells us about the rods and cones--the retina, and such like
things are pretty much similar in all people, but how do our brains
interpret these signals? Is it the same across the board? My question is,
"Does it matter how our bains interpret the colour red?" As long as I say,
'Hey! That's red!' and you say, 'Why yes, it is red!'--does it matter how
our brains perceive the messages from the optic nerve--the important bit is
that we agree.
So I take a physical issue (my colourblindness and the ideas and issues
thereof) and I apply concepts gleaned from this to other areas in life.
I bring up a point that some folks, me included, might get so ensconsed into
our own little worldview, that we start interpreting things in a flawed
fashion. I mean, my colourblindness is a physical flaw to be sure, but
sometimes we get so entrenched in our own little picture that we 'see'
issues and ideas through our 'made up' worldview, a 'mental flaw'. We bend,
twist, and otherwise rearrange things to 'fit into' our lives, instead of
adapting our lives to fit reality. It really is much like the 'rose
coloured glasses' that look to the past and say, 'wasn't it great back
then'-- when the reality is we gloss over the bad bits, and highlight the
good bits.
And I say that there is a bigger picture. Sometimes we have to look outside
our trenches and realize those that we are fighting against are just other
'us's, and it's time to put down our guns, stand up, brush the dirt and dust
of dogma off our clothes, and walk over to the other guy and say, "Hey,
how's it going? Maybe your view has a few merits, and maybe mine has some
merits--Maybe we can find a median somewhere that fits reality better than
either you or myself could do on our own."
'Nuff about that, except one more time--Purple!!!
>
> Then there are a tremendous number of refernces to TV shows that I've never
> heard of (at least I knew the shows Ed cited in his snide note), and analogies
> that seem to be deeply insightful to him, but are completely meaningless to me.
However, I have endeavoured to lay out these analogies in their entirety as
clear and concise as possible, with examples outside the realm of
television--hard life lesson examples, and only attribute the source to said
show, so you know where I got it from, instead of relying on you to actually
go watch it. If something is meaningless, then ask for clarification--as
you said, I found these ideas deeply insightful, and I laid them out to the
best of my ability--you don't have to do the same, you just have to try to
understand without a prejudicial heart--I try to do the same.
> When someone (sometimes me) points out one or more of: A) your particular
> ignorance on the matter is showing, why not read up and then come back, but
> until then, we're going to go on with the conversation, B) I think that it is
> more likely that your friend is delusional than that fairies with special
> knowledge are in communion with him, C) since Tom, Dick, and Harry all >perceive
I just started reading the bio of John Nash--and the quotation on the back
cover (books in my truck so this is entirely from my faulty memory)--'Why
did you believe that extraterrestrials were in contact with you?' to which
Nash replied, "the ideas came from the same place as my insight into
mathematics--why would I doubt it?".
Just throwing that one out there for Dave-humour reasons, not the least of
which is that I found that book in a bargain bin a week ago and just opened
it up to a page where Einstein is quoted to have said, "God may be subtle,
but he isn't malicious" (again, paraphrased from my faulty memory) and I
thought of you guys, so I bought the book...
If you don't actually stop to point out the 'ignorance on the matter' as you
perceive it--I mean, I pointed out where I thought otehr people's points and
ideas lacked a certain, shall we say, intellectual rationality behind
them--that they didn't work as stated in any sort of cohesive fashion on a
bigger level--their points may have worked for that specific issue, but
there was no overarching framework, and they would have to come up with
different rationalities to justify the other points, which would all
conflict with one another. That was where my idea about framework comes in
to play.
> purple and so do I, and we all seem to think that it means the same thing, I'm
> going to stick with my understanding of purple, D) snozzblats and snazzblots
> are actually the same thing with some slight variance and I think so because >of
> x, y, and z, E) I don't get that TV reference, can you please just say what >you
> mean,
I try to, really I do. And I may have gone on about how my posts were
entirely deleted like lots in the past, but it was only a couple of times,
but do I really hang all my suppositions on only television quotes? Or do I
use ideas gleaned form a variety of sources as a starting point? Again I
mention here--if the point is right, Just, and honourable, who cares who
said it or where it came from?
> or F) I don't know what you mean with that analogy, can you please just
> say what you mean, he responds in such a way that I think he is: 1) presenting
> an accusation of obtusity (or obtuseness, whatever)
Obtusificatedness! Geesh... Do I have to teach you *everything*? ;)
> , 2) ignoring or not
> grasping the reason(s) listed in the response, 3) refusing to alter his style
> such that conversation can progress,
Again, I reiterate--because you don't like my response by no means
invalidates my response. I read the responses, and if it fails to deal with
the point made, I call you on it. I *want* the conversation to
progress--that's the purpose of debate. The reason I used the term
'stalemate' a while back in a different thread was due to the 'immovability'
of others to see *any* other side--I don't work from the theory of immovable
objects (them) in the way of unstoppable vehicles(me)--my life is too short,
and there is only so many hours in a day to play with LEGO. I stated my
peace as best I can, and since I wasn't asked for clarification, even though
I gave ample opportunity numerous times for others to do so, I moved on.
And I am a man true to my word--when I say I'm done, I'm done.
It in no way, shape or form diminishes the other POV, it just says that we
aren't moving, aren't coming together, so why continue? I mean, it has been
shown time and time again that others are really going to think what they
want, so why continue the thread? There's no logical justification to do
so, and it only makes me, imho, look obstinant, rabid, and immoveable to
those out there, as much as others may look the same to me if they continue
to hash out the same stuff. I'm not a pit bull with my teeth clamped on a
kids leg--only releasing it when I'm beaten or dead--again, life's too short
for that type of debate. No movement from either side? Stalemate.
> 4) following up with a bunch of analogies
> and TV references that seem valueless and confusing,
Asked and answered above
> and 5) eventually getting
> hostile (which I understand, I do it eventually too).
Hostile? Why you little...!!! ;)
If I have ever been perceived as hostile, with all seriousness, I
apologize--I don't believe hostility gets us anywhere--I try to keep things
light, and focused on the subject at hand (Dave tangents aside) and I may
forget the smilies now and then, but I would never want to be considered
even close to hostile. I am a pacifist, though I do believe in a 'holy war'
scenario. How does that work when I tried to join the armed forces? Well,
it works out in my mind, but that'll be another thread.
>
> And I'm sure he has a very different take on this. Above, he writes:
>
> > > When I refute every single 'niggly' point made by someone with
> > > what I consider to be a very logical framework and understanding of the
> > > issue, and then the entire thread gets deleted and in its place I'm told I'm
> > > wrong, with absolutely no points refuted *at all* (and this has happened
> > > numerous times),
>
> which suggests that he really does think that he's laying out a logical
> framework that's being ignored.
I do, and I believe it is. When I'm wrong, I readily admit it--no worries
on that point at all. However, you have to convince me I'm wrong, as I have
to convince you that you may be wrong with your POV. This is where my
entire idea about attacking and dealing with the issues comes into
play--Convincing does not mean insulting (real insulting, not banter--banter
keeps it light), or belittling (he's Canadian, he doesn't count, and such
posted elsewhere)--convincing means discourse and dialogue, and if you can't
see what the other side is saying (a la deleting it all) then how can there
be a discourse or dialogue?
>
> I've been convinced that I'm wrong in this forum several times. I've learned
> lots here. I really personally value this interaction and have a very
> different perception of the value of this place than that espoused most >notably
> in recent times by Frank Filz (even though he seems to be participating).
Of this we both agree--Frank is a welcome participant and I have thoroughly
enjoyed his writings.
> But
> I don't have the skills to reach Dave K. in a discussion. I just don't. He
> says things that are witty and interesting sometimes; so I will sit back and
> enjoy them, but by and large, I have backed away from responding to him >because
> it feels futile. It feels like he's accidentally trolling...that is >responding
> almost exactly like a troll would, but he seems genuine. Maybe he's just
> really good, but that doesn't feel right to me. I think I just don't have the
> right skills. I know I don't organize my thoughts well sometimes, particularly
> as a thread stretches out, so maybe that's my problem.
It is a problem shared by me, though I will admit that I don't organize my
thoughts right from the beginning, not just as the thread progresses. I
read something and I say, "Well, here's how I would interpret that into my
'big picture' worldview", and then I write it. Yes sometimes it is 'off the
cuff'--K, most of the times it's off the cuff--but that doesn't matter--with
dialogue back and forth, we can hone our ratinale and opinions--that's how I
took the original 'niggly' post--jumping on somehting 'cause it's spelled
wrong, or the grammar's not correct, well, you can, but it will just get the
point cleaned up, then where are we? The point is still standing there,
waiting to be refuted--and now the point is cleaner, better, stronger, than
it was before (oops, television quote... sorry...)
> Anyway, I thought it would be worth laying out my perceptions. Maybe someone
> can help me learn to communicate or think, maybe Dave will benefit from seeing
> my perceptions (those that are correct and those that are not -- perceptions
> just are), and maybe someone will point out how I'm wrong. Any of that would
> have value. Whatever else anyone can say about this, DaveK and I (at the very
> least) are miscommunicating rampantly.
Perceptions are not wrong--like if I perceive brown as green sometimes, my
perception is not *wrong* for that's what my eyes are telling me--it's how I
perceive it. The 'real' truth may be out there, but unless someone comes
along and says, 'hey, that's brown, not green, you oaf!', how would I know?
For me sometimes, the problem comes with dealing with issues that I feel
passionately about, and these issues mostly come with peole dieing out in
the world and what can I do to fix said situation. But getting bogged down,
well, my life really is just too short, so it is enough for me to know when
to stop and get out, go back to rtlToronto, or start a thread on a tunnel
thru the earth and have some fun.
>
> Chris
Thanks Chris. Remember that I (try to) never attack a person or hold any
type of malice towards anyone--I'm very good at forgetting names, but ideas
and concepts I remember for a long time--I really am here to dicuss issues
and to grow in my understanding with regards to how we can better ourselves
and the world around us (though, like the tunnel, it doesn't always have to
be *big issue* stuff...)
Dave K.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) I am one of the people that I think Dave is talking about. And I don't know how to correct it. My perception is that in threads on fairly disparate topics in which both he and I have been involved, he has advanced arguments that look like: (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
