,
13 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ I think deeply need a new mode of collaborative idea-exploration that transcends the pitfalls of argumentation
2/ The argumentative mode _assumes_ one person is 'right' and the other is 'wrong,' though in truth two people who ostensibly disagree can both be accurate within the context of their lifeworld/frame of reference
E.g. "Talking past" one another
E.g. "Talking past" one another
3/ Thinking rigidly in terms of "correct" and "not correct" is a mind-narrowing feedback loop that closes a person off to many interesting ideas that likely contain some value/truth
It's an egocentric game of I Wanna Prove I'm Smarter And Know Best
It's an egocentric game of I Wanna Prove I'm Smarter And Know Best
4/ If the "medium" of discourse is the message, the message of the argumentative medium is that we're letting our egos run the show and valuing winning above truth
5/ Granted, we do still need some kind of 'objective' toolkit for testing the accuracy of hypotheses
I.e. Science is still a useful bullshit detector
However, most science-y people are far too dogmatic about the set of ideas deemed valid by the present scientific orthodoxy
I.e. Science is still a useful bullshit detector
However, most science-y people are far too dogmatic about the set of ideas deemed valid by the present scientific orthodoxy
6/ History has shown that scientific accuracy takes a long time to achieve, and that our present models are likely to be upended in due time
Furthermore, we lack the scientific instruments/methods necessary to explore/answer many of the truly Big Questions of our existence
Furthermore, we lack the scientific instruments/methods necessary to explore/answer many of the truly Big Questions of our existence
7/ Despite what many seem to want to believe, the Mystery of this existence is not heaving its dying breath; it's alive and infinitely vast
No human being or institution understands more than a small fraction of what is going on here; don't let them fool you
No human being or institution understands more than a small fraction of what is going on here; don't let them fool you
8/ And as Terence McKenna (I believe) once pointed out: Paradoxically, the more we learn—the more of reality we illuminate—the denser and more expansive the Mystery seems to become
9/ So anyway, in sum, circling back: Argue less. Build a meta-awareness of argument as a very limited mode of idea-exploration. Usually both sides contain validity/value. Focus more on what seems true or fascinating in another's point of view than what seems 'wrong'
10/ And granted, of course, these words represent just one incomplete ever-shifting perspective of one funny Earth monkey, so take them with a grain of salt too
Be open enough to hold on to what is useful/resonant, be discerning enough to discard what is not
Be open enough to hold on to what is useful/resonant, be discerning enough to discard what is not
11/ P.S. If I wasn't clear enough, don't be so quick to dismiss ideas and subjective experiences that fall outside of the present scientific orthodoxy; remember that it is massively incomplete and will look radically different in a century or two
12/ Funnily, it's been about 30 minutes and I'm already feeling like I sold argumentation short in this mini-diatribe
Building arguments in support of a particular idea/conclusion is a highly valuable tool/skill, and debate is often a useful mode of discourse...
Building arguments in support of a particular idea/conclusion is a highly valuable tool/skill, and debate is often a useful mode of discourse...
13/ And yet these modes of asserting correctness have common dysfunctions and blindspots. They encourage habits of mind that can become a cage. Use them wisely, and try to gain a meta-awareness of their failure modes
/end
/end
