Paradox and Otherness


source: Moral dilemmas as intellectual bullying

This is the dark side of reasoned argument, where debate itself becomes a form of violence. Who hasn’t laboriously constructed a bulletproof argument and been blinded by rage and frustration when one’s interlocutor could not be forced to agree? “But surely,” you sputter, “you have to admit that…” And at this point, only one response is possible: “I don’t have to admit anything!”

Within one mind, paradoxes exist and are real.  A thing can be, and be not.  But in the world, apart from that one mind ... in that world which includes that mind as well as all that is not that mind .... in that world there can be no such paradox. 

Must we not make at least that one assumption?



Tags

  1. logic
  2. paradox
  3. otherness
  4. moderated item
  5. mentograph
  6. ven diagram
  7. about rwg
  8. contradiction

Comments


Seth says
it might be interesting to try to mashup this with "Not (not A) is still not A" .  Perhaps it does ... perhaps it does not.

Seth says
This came to mind because of C Derick Varn's  facebook post here.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-10-25 09:44:32 16255
seth 2012-10-25 09:26:18 16255
seth 2012-10-25 08:39:56 16255
seth 2012-10-24 07:17:42 16255
I can't believe it ... i have the coin on "A thing can be, and be not".
then too, i hate it when Google indexes the river rather than the item.  i suppose there might be a way to teach Google how not to index temporary flows rather than perminant url's ... but is it worth fixing ?

To tell more of the story, when the same thought is worded differently, there are millions of usages ... "a thing can be and not be".   Of course they both mean the same thing.  I still like my version better
 
Note that Google indexes very rapidly and accurately when you post on G+.
Going the other way I often use google's site index to find something in fbi.  Of course if you are going the other way good luck with those river indexes which are transcendental.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-10-26 10:11:43 16255
MR 2012-10-26 09:52:38 16255
seth 2012-10-26 09:45:16 16255
MR 2012-10-26 09:40:29 16255
How do lie detectors work which illustrates your point?

Lie detectors measure psychosocial distress ... in other words mental friction.  What is the friction between?  One part of the mind knowing that P ... and the other part of the mind saying P not.  That IS a paradox.
Lie detectors measure electrochemical reactions in the body that show up when a person knows he/she/it is lying.  The rest of your sentence is layering on your imagination & theory about anothers' mind onto physical measurements.

Well the measurement actually corroborates my thesis.   

What is your objection?  

Please explain.
I'm getting exhausted making the distinction for you between conflict & anger & mental illusions like paradox. For me using the word paradox lends nothing to the presumed discussion purpose nor does it throw light on political discourse. There are better words.  The right-wrong-game comes to mind & is much clearer.  Also clearer is the ontology of anger previously noted.


Mark de LA says
mental friction? oxymoron or bad metaphor?
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=paradox&searchmode=none
paradox (n.) Look up paradox at Dictionary.com1530s, "statement contrary to common belief or expectation," from M.Fr. paradoxe (14c.) and directly from L. paradoxum "paradox, statement seemingly absurd yet really true," from Gk. paradoxon, noun use of neuter of adjective paradoxos "contrary to expectation, incredible," from para- "contrary to" (see para- (1)) + doxa "opinion," from dokein "to appear, seem, think" (see decent). Meaning "statement that is seemingly self-contradictory yet not illogical or obviously untrue" is from 1560s.paradoxical (adj.) Look up paradoxical at Dictionary.com1580s, from paradox + -ical. Competing forms were paradoxal (1560s), paradoxial (1620s), but they survive in niches, if at all. Related: Paradoxically.Olbers' paradox Look up Olbers' paradox at Dictionary.com"if stars are uniformly distributed through the sky, their number should counterbalance their faintness and the night sky should be as bright as the day;" named for German astronomer H.W.M. Olbers (1758-1840), who propounded it in 1826.koan (n.) Look up koan at Dictionary.comZen paradox, 1946, from Japanese ko "public" + an "matter for thought."


Seth says
MR 2012-10-26 09:38:19 16255
MR 2012-10-26 09:21:42 16255
I think the problem is you are using the word paradox out of context or in the wrong way. The context for anger is a worthy pursuit, but not in the context of paradox which is just mental illusion, like an optical illusion only different.

With respect to anger, there are clues in both the RS lecture on "The Mission of Anger" and ontologically in BofNK 23:28-44 :
-
I suspect you are saying I am changing the subject, but not really:
  • anger is about something that has passed
  • anger is based on a feeling of hurt
  • anger is about revealing a core sense of incapacity
  • anger is about regenerating a sense of capacity through a destructive intent or feeling-reaction.
All of these can be mapped into the political discourse of the day.
yes ... anger is another reaction to mental friction ... perhaps even that which was caused by paradox.

Seth says
MR 2012-10-26 09:40:29 16255
How do lie detectors work which illustrates your point?

Lie detectors measure psychosocial distress ... in other words mental friction.  What is the friction between?  One part of the mind knowing that P ... and the other part of the mind saying P not.  That IS a paradox.

Seth says
M 2012-10-25 11:13:34 16255
Seth: ...
A thing can be and be not
... very strange or trivial.
"A thing can be and be not" ? ... incomplete sentence or ambiguous poetic license with English.
"A thing can be and not be" would be in error, is that what you mean?
"A thing can be and not be ... something else" .. true, but trivial.

Well "A thing can be, or be not" is in fact a poetic way of saying "A thing can be and not be" . 

It is not ambiguous, not in error, and not trivial.  Rather it is just the simplest and most general expression of a paradox that i can think of.

Seth says
MR 2012-10-25 14:43:06 16255
seth 2012-10-25 12:09:45 16255
M 2012-10-25 11:57:44 16255
seth 2012-10-25 11:52:05 16255
Incidentally "A thing can be, and be not" is the denial of this classical formula in the domain of a real mind.

Well if you want to believe in paradoxes & reject logic that's fine with me I won't need to consult you on rational or logical stuff.

Your sentence appears to be about you and me. 

I had though we were talking about things that can be, and be not.

I don't want to talk about your ego or my ego or the relationship between them.

Oh well
Nothing can both exist & NOT exist at the same time, If you think so then try the non=existent state for a while & please report back.

The first part of your sentence is true and I agree with.  For the second part of your sentence, please read what i said about Paradox and Otherness to start this item.

Seth says
MR 2012-10-25 19:45:55 16255
Well within one mind it is just confusion.
Yeah that term works.

The more interesting part of my observation is when you consider multiple minds.  If one mind believes P and an other mind believes ~P, then between them there exists a case of: P can be, and P can be not ... hence a paradox. 

Once you understand that you might be able to grock why the conclusion in the linked article can happen ...

source: Moral dilemmas as intellectual bullying

This is the dark side of reasoned argument, where debate itself becomes a form of violence. Who hasn’t laboriously constructed a bulletproof argument and been blinded by rage and frustration when one’s interlocutor could not be forced to agree? “But surely,” you sputter, “you have to admit that…” And at this point, only one response is possible: “I don’t have to admit anything!”
.  Say for example one person believes "I am right and the other person is wrong" while to other person also believes that same thing, only his "I" points to his ego instead of the other guys ego. 

My conclusion is that kind of paradoxes must be removed before reasoned argument can take place. 

On a national scale we also have such paradoxes.  Those are what we should be exposing and trying to reconcile.


Seth says
MR 2012-10-25 16:13:38 16255
seth 2012-10-25 16:09:54 16255
MR 2012-10-25 16:05:50 16255
seth 2012-10-25 15:08:17 16255
source: Mark says

Just because you or someone else is confused into thinking a paradox exists within reality does not mean that reality is confused.  That would be equivalent to thinking that a lie is true because someone else believes it is true.

That hangs together well.  But, strangely, I don't believe that "because someone  is confused into thinking a paradox exists within reality it means that reality is confused".  Nor is there anything that i have said in this article that would imply such.  Where did you get that idea ... and why are you smug about it?
reality doesn't have paradoxes it just is.
true again .

Said differently that might come out like ..

source: me in body of item

But in the world, apart from that one mind ... in that world which includes that mind as well as all that is not that mind .... in that world there can be no such paradox.
... now where is it again where we disagree?

so something is not & is at the same time?

in some minds, yes.   Look where i have placed the emphasis starting out my paragraph:  "Within one mind". 

Seth says
MR 2012-10-26 07:22:33 16255
MR 2012-10-26 07:13:54 16255
Once you stray into beliefs instead of reality or existence you have a mess.  It still doesn't speak of paradoxes in a what's so world. You are unlikely to ever remove paradoxes (disagreement) of the kind you are talking about. I can't get past the title of your link above. Intellectual bullying sounds like bullshit to me. Passion in one's arguments is perhaps a context I could understand, otherwise there seems something dishonest in the title like someone lost an argument & is going sour grapes about it.

I held my nose and read the article. The guy is just using hyperbole to get to a conclusion that doesn't follow his argument. We don't choose to vote for candidates by reason - or rarely.  There are always trade-offs in war & high impact projects. Sometimes you can use the Ben Franklin approach of two lists pro vs con & sometimes not. Decision strategies abound in the real world.

I actually scanned the linked article very fast ... i followed it a bit ... but it really wasn't my thing.  But i *was* impressed by the conclusion which i quoted.  No it does not follow from the examples in the body of the article.  But it is about the most impassioned expression i have heard of a situation where one person holds P and the other person holds P not. 

Seth says
source: Mark asserts above
You are unlikely to ever remove paradoxes (disagreement) of the kind you are talking about.
.... hmmm.   Why not?   First you identify what the paradoxes are.  Find the bug.  Find which assumptions one holds that the other does not.  Then you at least know what needs to be solved.  Again ... and you emphasized this too ... in reality apart from the disagreeing minds ... there is no paradox.

Seth says
MR 2012-10-26 08:35:18 16255
seth 2012-10-26 08:14:20 16255
MR 2012-10-26 07:22:33 16255
MR 2012-10-26 07:13:54 16255
Once you stray into beliefs instead of reality or existence you have a mess.  It still doesn't speak of paradoxes in a what's so world. You are unlikely to ever remove paradoxes (disagreement) of the kind you are talking about. I can't get past the title of your link above. Intellectual bullying sounds like bullshit to me. Passion in one's arguments is perhaps a context I could understand, otherwise there seems something dishonest in the title like someone lost an argument & is going sour grapes about it.

I held my nose and read the article. The guy is just using hyperbole to get to a conclusion that doesn't follow his argument. We don't choose to vote for candidates by reason - or rarely.  There are always trade-offs in war & high impact projects. Sometimes you can use the Ben Franklin approach of two lists pro vs con & sometimes not. Decision strategies abound in the real world.

I actually scanned the linked article very fast ... i followed it a bit ... but it really wasn't my thing.  But i *was* impressed by the conclusion which i quoted.  No it does not follow from the examples in the body of the article.  But it is about the most impassioned expression i have heard of a situation where one person holds P and the other person holds P not. 
Yep, bullying is now like the new racism. Accusations abound.  The bullying-card is now being played by the administration in foreign policy. It is a disingenuous fit for intellectual pursuits. It doesn't support paradoxes in the real world either. Political discourse has always been contentious since the founding - don't expect it to dissipate any time soon.  In fact, with the new media & the twittering class it will increase. We have to remove the payoffs to change the nature of the game. Quit playing the meme "the most powerful man in the world" for the president. Sever the government from the economy. Embrace the threefold being of the Commonwealth.
Those would be my solutions if I cared about the discourse much.


hmmmm .... consider for a moment .... does paradox actually cause mental friction ?  

How does that friction get expressed?   Bullying ... stubborness ... violence ...

no?



Seth says
MR 2012-10-26 09:21:42 16255
I think the problem is you are using the word paradox out of context or in the wrong way. The context for anger is a worthy pursuit, but not in the context of paradox which is just mental illusion, like an optical illusion only different.

Well, thanks for arriving here because you are right on the very nub of this gestalt.


Consider for a moment ... how do lie detectors work ?

Mark de LA says
maybe you are thinking of a paradigm?


Mark de LA says
I have no trouble with otherness since that is an easily accessed state via the common objective universe ontology.  Phrases such as "I am you, and be you not" is invalid English although you think it is.  Regardless of your OCD on paradox, your wallaby is still just your own; mostly a paradox of English, pseudo logic & other stuff. Why don't you state what the problem or situation you are trying to address is & show how your theory solves it?


Mark de LA says
Yes, NLP has the matching meta-program which has 5 different possible ways of dealing with the world
  1. matching (sameness)
  2. miss-matching (differentness)
  3. matching then differentness
  4. miss-matching with sameness
  5. polarity miss-match - always goes in the opposite direction
So you can start out focusing on the sameness or difference between people who are in conflict.
People who use NLP like techniques during negotiations use some of all of these once the parties metaprograms are elicited.


Seth says
source: Mark
Well, the word paradox just doesn't work at all for me; you might as well call it a pecknitter.  So as long as you use it I will not be able to play & you can enjoy the paradox in your own mind. Sorry if that was all there was to the gist of your wallaby.


[...]

What you had above as an example is a simple "irreconcilable difference" such as in divorces. A paradox is just an illusion.

There are lots of things that are illusion that are not paradox.  There are lots of paradoxes that are not illusion.   The same for your term "just confusion" ... some of paradox is confusion, some is not. 

"Irreconcilable difference" is closer to what is necessary for this analysis tool, but ends up obscuring some of its usefulness.  I should write some more about [title The World and the Meta-World] but you already know about it ... have refereed to it many times yourself  ...  and should be able to flesh out my meaning here quite easily.   "Irreconcilably differences" refers to where what is being analyzed belongs to the World.  For example, you and I cannot occupy the same space at the same time.  That is a characteristic of the World.  That is an "irreconcilably difference".  That difference is part of the World .... it is not just a confusion or an illusion.  But the situation can still be expressed in the Meta-World as a paradox  ...  "I am you, and be you not".  The complete concept of "paradox" has been carefully chosen here to apply to situations which arises both in the World and in the Meta-World of just semantics.  On the other hand there are paradoxes that cause conflicts that are mere semantic differences ... differences which, when you drill down and eliminate all the confusion, are just illusions.  I like the word "paradox" because it can apply in both worlds ... the world of being ... and the world of signs.

Diluting "paradox" with a weaker word or concept will, perhaps, help you eliminate the point of the analysis, but it won't help you get the full thrust of the wallaby.

The same goes for "otherness" ... which is the other essential part of the wallaby.   This  is not just about paradox or illusion or confusion or irreconcilable difference ... it is about, quite literally, "Paradox and Otherness".  I'm going to make a diagram of this ... wait for it ... perhaps that will jog your thoughts from another aspect of your being.

Seth says
I absolutely agree with you that there is a big distinction between paradox and anger or conflict.

I am saying that:  Paradox --causes--> anger or conflict.

Let us use your example of the RWG game.   "I am right, and you are not"  is a paradox to you when you know that "You are right and I am not".   How much conflict has that caused between us?  Another excellent example in the field of politics is "This is my land, yet it be not" ... that is the paradox in which Palestinians find themselves with the Israelis ... how much anger and killing has that one caused.  When "i know P" and yet i say "P not" it causes so much internal conflict that it is actually measurable with physical instruments from outside of my being.

Please don't over think this ... is is very simple.

Seth says
seth 2012-10-27 11:11:56 16255
source: Mark
Why don't you state what the problem or situation you are trying to address is & show how your theory solves it?
good idea.

Remember the Star Trek program where a negoitator was suppose to be able to resolve intra-galactic problems.  I think at some point he told us his solution, which went something like find the elements that are common to both sides and build on those.   Well that is a fine way to do it.   This is another.  Identify where the paradoxes are that prevent the sides from working together .... drill down into them ... see if they are mere semantic confusions ... or whether that are based on tangible being where the sides must compromise with their otherness and respect and tolerate that.

Did my diagram, now in the body of this item, help you grock this strategy ?


I finally researched and found the episode of Star Trek was "Loud As A Whisper".   There they explore other channels of interaction as well. 

Note that my diagram speaks of almost the other side of the coin.  Rather than build on common experience, instead Identify the contradictions ... become aware of them ... that way, perchance, you can make them go Poof !  There is no reason that you cannot do either and/or both.

Seth says
M 2012-10-27 13:38:46 16255
You could probably fix it a bit to include minds as sensory spaces just like the 5-sense space of material reality & show different minds intersecting on some sensory space say m1s1 .... m1sn etc & m2s1 ... m2sn and not on m1sn+1 thourgh m1s(infinity) & likewise on m2 etc. & of course leave out the word paradox. The two minds just don't meet on some subjects & may have opposite truth values (& some null set values) for the some of the n through infinity sets. Then you have to go back to reality & provide that mapping or correspondence.
IHMO, the task of settling disputes, negotiations, marriages & divorces involve feelings which are not rational or subject to logic so the task seems futile.  There is also the factor of time.  Over time the mappings & correspondences are not static & may change. To get agreements you have to make sure the parties agree for an agreed duration in time & then such agreement may turn into a problem.

Yes you could make the diagram more detailed by introducing different channels of mind and interaction.  I'm not so very sure that would improve my understanding of the simple concept.

Your sentence "The two minds just don't meet on some subjects & may have opposite truth values" is, i believe false in the context of this diagram.   Note how i labeled the intersection: "This is where the minds communicate and interact".   When i parse one of your sentences and really do try to understand it for its own value, I must hold your proposition in my mind at the same time as i hold my own.  That is part of the beauty of applying a ven diagram to mind itself.   I know, its not the usual way to use a ven diagram, but nevertheless, i think it still works.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-10-31 10:14:21 16255
Well why are matching/mis-matching and sameness/difference not just the same two  distinctions ?   I mean if there is a difference, then is not that difference a mis-match?   But then yes, I can see how if you add the various egos involved you may be able to make such a distinction. 

I'd like to see a diagram where the ego's relationship to the proposition (and/or it's contradiction) becomes explicit.  My diagram does represent the egos ... they are the circles labeled "This is the mind" and "This is the other mind" ... but it doesn't distinguish between the experience of the proposition and the ego's attitude toward that expedience.  It seems to me that the NLP breakdown does that ... but not in a explicit way. 
NLP looks at let's say sameness-difference as a meta-program strategy which looks at a bunch of information or data and factors out those things which are similar & then focuses on the differences as perhaps the problem. Pure sameness wouldn't even bother with the differences. A pure missmatcher would look at how he disagrees with you first before acknowledging anything which he agrees with. Etc. I'm sure there are better explanations on the web.  Very few people have a monolithic strategy.


Seth says
Well why are matching/mis-matching and sameness/difference not just the same two  distinctions ?   I mean if there is a difference, then is not that difference a mis-match?   But then yes, I can see how if you add the various egos involved you may be able to make such a distinction. 

I'd like to see a diagram where the ego's relationship to the proposition (and/or it's contradiction) becomes explicit.  My diagram does represent the egos ... they are the circles labeled "This is the mind" and "This is the other mind" ... but it doesn't distinguish between the experience of the proposition and the ego's attitude toward that expedience.  It seems to me that the NLP breakdown does that ... but not in a explicit way. 

Seth says
The ego, of course, is the chiggy thing when we peruse truth.  RS says that to arrive at truth, the ego should be minimized ... and i agree ... i suspect you do too.  A predicament arises because where the ego is detached from the proposition (no passion, no pathos), then so becomes the motive to inquire.  I think this is where a pure love of truth would need to kick in and provide that motive.

Seth says
M 2012-10-31 12:39:44 16255
seth 2012-10-31 10:14:21 16255
Well why are matching/mis-matching and sameness/difference not just the same two  distinctions ?   I mean if there is a difference, then is not that difference a mis-match?   But then yes, I can see how if you add the various egos involved you may be able to make such a distinction. 

I'd like to see a diagram where the ego's relationship to the proposition (and/or it's contradiction) becomes explicit.  My diagram does represent the egos ... they are the circles labeled "This is the mind" and "This is the other mind" ... but it doesn't distinguish between the experience of the proposition and the ego's attitude toward that expedience.  It seems to me that the NLP breakdown does that ... but not in a explicit way. 
NLP looks at let's say sameness-difference as a meta-program strategy which looks at a bunch of information or data and factors out those things which are similar & then focuses on the differences as perhaps the problem. Pure sameness wouldn't even bother with the differences. A pure missmatcher would look at how he disagrees with you first before acknowledging anything which he agrees with. Etc. I'm sure there are better explanations on the web.  Very few people have a monolithic strategy.


I think your term "meta-program strategy" implies an agenda and a purpose to achieve some goal.   That adgenda/purpposefullness must needs come from an ego ... no?  That is the direction that i wanted to tease out here.   Strange you don't mention it at all in your response.

Mark de LA says
M 2012-10-31 12:56:05 16255
Yep, I was responding to your apparent confusion over the nature of the metaprograms.  You Don't really need an ego although underneath that all is what some zen folks call the self or the overall strategy for maintaining the self.  It's similar to the RWG only different.
One is not likely to get rid of the self. Just as one is not likely to get rid of the RWG.


Seth says
M 2012-10-31 13:59:24 16255
seth 2012-10-31 13:28:11 16255
M 2012-10-31 12:57:13 16255
M 2012-10-31 12:56:05 16255
Yep, I was responding to your apparent confusion over the nature of the metaprograms.  You Don't really need an ego although underneath that all is what some zen folks call the self or the overall strategy for maintaining the self.  It's similar to the RWG only different.
One is not likely to get rid of the self. Just as one is not likely to get rid of the RWG.


well, of course, that is where we violently disagree.  To me RWG is just a metaprogram ... a habitual behavior ... a dastardly one at that ... one that runs in error ... and certainly one which is best to discard.  Your assumption that "you are not likely to get rid of RWG" appears to me as just an excuse to continue a behavior that, everyone around you detests, by you appear helpless to discard ... hence you must excuse it and link it to Zen.

Now I am wondering if that violent disagreement will prevent us both from understanding this.

Shucks ...
Thanks ... your response proves my point independent of your words.

Well just because you respond P to my P NOT, doesn't mean that we cannot inquire how and why and delve deeper within the matter, should we have the courage.  "The Mission of Truth", as you suggested, may contain much that could help.  What is the relationship between truth and ego ... ZEN or ZEN NOT?

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-10-31 13:17:41 16255
M 2012-10-31 13:08:36 16255
The word Ego has a lot of negative baggage in usage today. I usually use it in the Anthroposophical context.
me: i end up translating the "Anthroposophical context" to today's modern usage and find that they, for the most part, end up being the same thing.
Hardly!


Mark de LA says
seth: ...
Well just because you respond P to my P NOT, doesn't mean that we cannot inquire how and why and delve deeper within the matter, should we have the courage.  "The Mission of Truth", as you suggested, may contain much that could help.  What is the relationship between truth and ego ... ZEN or ZEN NOT?
... Your lingo doesn't work for me as I have already explained. You distort the RS lecture & pick out your favorite rub the ego thingy. I suspect you STILL don't realize that the RWG is stronger than just a habit like smoking or a teenager jacking-off. If you wanted to tap some of my sources you could read BofNK   ... this quote applies from pg 131 (7:5)
He who would distinguish the true from the false
 must have an adequate idea of what is true and false

-
Baruch Spinoza
***
There are 200 or more pages about self & creating self etc. Pronouncements just don't work for me; particularly ones that contradict logic & embrace paradox. Deframing doesn't either. I decided to go back & re-read some of the chapters on self from BofNK & found this interesting idea [in my own words] since most of self is wrapped up in the experience & our talking to ourselves in concepts & ideas about experience with language try to experience what self would be without language - is there a self there at all? what is it? (<- zen etc.).
Anyway, it is late & I am not sure I can continue to contribute anything of profit to this node.
Zzz..

Seth says
source: Mark above
I suspect you STILL don't realize that the RWG is stronger than just a habit like smoking or a teenager jacking-off.
I have no doubt that defending my world view is a reaction that I continually do ... and that my place in my world view will be something that i will defend.  I agree that is not just a bad habit.

What i suspect is you don't realize just how very different my world view is from yours ... and that includes my place in it.  So that it seems to me, you will defend your place in your world view by attacking me (mismatching whatever i say) ... whereas i assure you that attacking you and disagreeing with your world view does not in anyway defend my own.   I do take otherness seriously.  So to me, your world view can be quite different, and still not be something that i must tear down in order to defend my own.  It simply doesn't work that way for me.  That is why RWG is not really something that i will accept as a necessary evil ... certainly not to the point that we do it here. 

Seth says
I think there is a question that is begging here relative to RWG:

What assumption forces one to think that you can defend your own world view, and your place within it, by tearing down, denying, or refuting another?


Even if defense of our world view and self is imperative to our beings ... it still does not imply that we must tear down, deny, and refute another world view  just to defend it.   Now i sure can see how accepting some new assumption might cause a world view to crumble ... then perhaps it must be refuted to defend one's own ... except that in a world in which both assumptions  can legitimately exist (even if they form a paradox between them) ... in that larger world, your assumption is just as valid to you, as mine is to me.  So tearing yours down does not need to help me defend my own.  I have found that real respect and tolerance of otherness works there time and again.

Perhaps defense of self is wired in ... but RWG is not.

Seth says
Mark 2012-11-26 13:23:41 16255
Defending your world view is not a problem. It is that you identify with your world view that causes you to defend it as self or part of it.. It's not just another world view, it's yours! Therefore you have to defend it as self! Chew on that for a while. Consider your world view as otherness to you & maybe you won't get so locked into the RWG - which may not be hard wired but programmed since childhood. It might as well be hard wired.

i don't have any problem with  that ... except of course that it is not necessary in defense of myself to deny, tear down, or otherwise refute your world view/self.   I did discuss that above (tolerance of otherness etc), so far you have ignored what i have said in that regard.

See Also

  1. Thought The Mind Body Paradox with 554 viewings related by tag "paradox".
  2. Thought Moving from 2 to 3 dimensions with 534 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  3. Thought cognitive dissonance with 258 viewings related by tag "VenDiagram".
  4. Thought Sensing ... with 167 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  5. Thought Win Win Interactions with others with 166 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  6. Thought So which is it? with 114 viewings related by tag "contradiction".
  7. Thought Conversation on hash tags? with 111 viewings related by tag "logic".
  8. Thought Tools in my peculair bag ... with 101 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  9. Thought The Objective World vs The Occurring World with 97 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  10. Thought #iSwim with 86 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  11. Thought 3 state logic with 86 viewings related by tag "logic".
  12. Thought Eropa with 79 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  13. Thought BARBARA CUBED - The Manual of Pure Logic with 75 viewings related by tag "logic".
  14. Thought I can walk and chew gum with 72 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  15. Thought about: Reversal of signification - comment 80112 with 52 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  16. Thought Free will of another with 39 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  17. Thought The binary logic of two distinctions with 34 viewings related by tag "logic".
  18. Thought Listening with 32 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  19. Thought Pride & Thanks feel Good with 26 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  20. Thought Identity Entails Logic with 20 viewings related by tag "logic".
  21. Thought List of Logical Fallacies with 19 viewings related by tag "logic".
  22. Thought Contrast ... with 18 viewings related by tag "contradiction".
  23. Thought A New Respect for The Specific with 17 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  24. Thought Can We destroy Symbols by Association with 15 viewings related by tag "about rwg".
  25. Thought Identity Entails the Laws of Logic with 8 viewings related by tag "logic".
  26. Thought The Rise of Gobbledygook. with 7 viewings related by tag "logic".
  27. Thought about: Introverts: You're Not Responsible For Other People's Feelings with 6 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  28. Thought i am ok ... you are not ok with 5 viewings related by tag "about rwg".
  29. Thought Two different directions out of racism with 4 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  30. Thought Towards a recognition ... with 4 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  31. Thought Respect othernes, do not destroy it with 4 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  32. Thought The Ten Commandments of Logic with 4 viewings related by tag "logic".
  33. Thought about: GW Document: Spring - #57 with 4 viewings related by tag "logic".
  34. Thought The wisdom of the natural seperating of being with 3 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  35. Thought A mentograph of a Sticky Cyber Molecule with 3 viewings related by tag "mentograph".
  36. Thought Threefoldness & the Synergy of Individuals -1005 RS with 3 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  37. Thought Illative force with 3 viewings related by tag "logic".
  38. Thought Illative Force - A Lament with 3 viewings related by tag "logic".
  39. Thought Otherness with 2 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  40. Thought Otherness & Culture with 2 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  41. Thought Worth Repeating with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  42. Thought BARBARA CUBED - I. DEFINITIONS with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  43. Thought about: the rule-following paradox: impossible to follow a rule? - youtube with 1 viewings related by tag "paradox".
  44. Thought phrases are more specific than single words with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  45. Thought An Awful Trick with 1 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  46. Thought Truth with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  47. Thought Conventional Logic vs Faith with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  48. Thought Ever wanted ... with 0 viewings related by tag "otherness".
  49. Thought not (not X) is not necessarily X with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  50. Thought I am other than you with 0 viewings related by tag "otherness".