I believe that this article can lead to a useful dialogue on basic assumptions that can help us better understand one another.
Showing posts with label common understanding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label common understanding. Show all posts
Friday, June 8, 2012
What's Fairness Got to do with Obeying the Law? | Aaron Ross Powell | Libertarianism.org
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Dialoguers
Dialoguers tend to agree that they need to listen well and not exclude anything. However the whole is too much and they can't listen yo everything. There is no way that thought can hold the whole. It is the nature of our thinking to abstract, limit, and define.
Dialoguers can't comprehend the absolute truth either. Still, they value the idea of truth and reality highly.
Dialoguers realize that it is useful to keep their demands on dialogue very small.
They find it useful to remember that no individual dialoguer is an authority. Not one of them is the teacher of the the group or a father to a group.
Some dialoguers tend to forget that as dialoguers they have no ppurpose or agenda, no goal or set destination except to better understand and appreciate each others opinions. They don't want to accomplish anything. The tend to find it easier to remember than nobody has to agree on anything.
They do intend to hear as many of the opinions offered as they can. They find that listening to all the opinions brings them together. They try to listen to all the opinuions and try to understand those opinions. They are meeting one another in that they are each putting a number of their cards on the table and they are all looking them over.
They don't have to make any decisions.
Many of them might say that their purpose is to communicate coherently and honestly. To that end they give each other space to talk. They learn to give each other space to be heard.
Dialoguers can't comprehend the absolute truth either. Still, they value the idea of truth and reality highly.
Dialoguers realize that it is useful to keep their demands on dialogue very small.
They find it useful to remember that no individual dialoguer is an authority. Not one of them is the teacher of the the group or a father to a group.
Some dialoguers tend to forget that as dialoguers they have no ppurpose or agenda, no goal or set destination except to better understand and appreciate each others opinions. They don't want to accomplish anything. The tend to find it easier to remember than nobody has to agree on anything.
They do intend to hear as many of the opinions offered as they can. They find that listening to all the opinions brings them together. They try to listen to all the opinuions and try to understand those opinions. They are meeting one another in that they are each putting a number of their cards on the table and they are all looking them over.
They don't have to make any decisions.
Many of them might say that their purpose is to communicate coherently and honestly. To that end they give each other space to talk. They learn to give each other space to be heard.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Opening Notes on Civil Discourse
My present notions of civil discourse include the following:
Civil discourse is talk for public and individual good. It is a respectful way of talking among equals. It is a way of talking in which the worth and judgment of the participants is a given. It requires personal modesty and an appreciation for the experience of the other participants.
Civil discourse is engagement in conversation intended to enhance understanding, It is a way to enjoy productive talk about facts, evidence, observations, and interpretations in a tolerant and courteous way.
I discussed many techniques and methods of dialogue in my Magic Table blog which are highly useful i civil discourse. A principle purpose of 'dialogue' as described in those Magic Table posts was to bring the individuals in groups of various sizes to share common meanings. That dialogue was meant to bring individuals closer to common understanding. One might consider that dialogue as an important subgroup of civil discourse.
Consider:
Who is interested in learning techniques of dialogue?
What are the more useful techniques of dialogue?
Of what use may knowledge of civil discourse be in these days?
Is there a set of categories which support civil discourse and rational inquiry?
Civil discourse is talk for public and individual good. It is a respectful way of talking among equals. It is a way of talking in which the worth and judgment of the participants is a given. It requires personal modesty and an appreciation for the experience of the other participants.
Civil discourse is engagement in conversation intended to enhance understanding, It is a way to enjoy productive talk about facts, evidence, observations, and interpretations in a tolerant and courteous way.
I discussed many techniques and methods of dialogue in my Magic Table blog which are highly useful i civil discourse. A principle purpose of 'dialogue' as described in those Magic Table posts was to bring the individuals in groups of various sizes to share common meanings. That dialogue was meant to bring individuals closer to common understanding. One might consider that dialogue as an important subgroup of civil discourse.
Consider:
Who is interested in learning techniques of dialogue?
What are the more useful techniques of dialogue?
Of what use may knowledge of civil discourse be in these days?
Is there a set of categories which support civil discourse and rational inquiry?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)