BITCHSLAP BLOGGING – OF COMMUNICATION, CACOPHONY AND THE COMEDY OF ERRORS

There is some major disconnects that I’ve found via blogging: debating those of unlike mind seems to be a Sisyphean task in most cases.

There are, for instance, only so many times one can re-explain the definition of ‘theory’ prior to bursting a blood vessel, or re-iterating the factual evidence of evolution. Or demand proof of the insubstantial. Before the eyes cross, and the knees go wobbly.

There is also the issue of establishing a premise. Most of us (myself included) usually wing it. Presuppositions firmly in place, we go toe-to-toe with the opposite side, and as a rule, it becomes a stalemate, an impasse.

There are multiple constraints in the realtime world as well. We forget often enough, that the other side, as we do, have other obligations in reality. Work, relationships, duties demanding to be done. As such, these demands will take us away from any debate. The other side will on occasion substitute silence with assent, declare victory prematurely, or simply wonder why the opponent is silent. Conveniently forgetting that there are other matters to attend to. Easily done: the opponent could very well be two continents away, called away on family matters, dealing with the multitude of duties that adult life burdens us with.

Sometimes, for myself, I lose interest in the discussion: I’ll drop a discussion due to the fact that beating a dead horse is usually a waste of time. Or, if the other poster insists on being verbose to the nth degree, I just don’t feel obliged to respond in-depth via fisking the entire response, and so have to resort to pulling a few choice comments, and responding to those. Context dropping isn’t a favorite hobby of mine, nor is the strawman approach: I endeavor mightily to avoid them both like the plague, but alas, being human, I fumble. As do we all.

Like most Americans, my attention span is very much tattered, due to the prevalence of the ‘glass teat’, as Harlan Ellison likes to dub it. While I’d like to think that I’ve abbreviated much of that via my embracing the practice of Tai Chi (which requires a degree of focus that my fellow citizenry evidently don’t possess), again, only human, and I do get distracted (I watch NUMB3RS on Friday nights, PDT, so don’t expect a lot that weeknight), enough so that I shrug, and move on to the next glittery object that attracts my notice, like a crow to tinsel.

Then there is the matter of who ‘won’ the debate. It’s usually decided by the audience, lacking an objective judge, as to who defeated whom (the Barker-Manata debate is a substantial proof of this: the atheists side with Barker, the religionists siding with Manata).

Then there is the issue of projection, definition number 8 –

1. “The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection—of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” (Alex Shoumatoff).
2. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.”

Or the old ‘You’re just like me, you just won’t admit it!’ defense. Being human, we all share commonalites: I am by far going to put running to the bathroom, getting my car fixed, eating my dinner, or going to work as a priority as opposed to dispensing a passionate logical argument to another poster’s commentary. Whether or not I ‘believe’ is an entirely subjective opinion I’ve reserved for myself, thanks much, so please don’t pigeonhole me by projecting your own mindset onto mine. History abounds with this mistake: don’t make it.

And of course, there are multiple moments where I feel I’ve adequately described my position for the umpteenth time, and yet no amount of explanation seems to reach the person in question. These tend to slip into acrimony, despite my best efforts.

Let’s put this in a nutshell: the people we agree with will applaud, the folks we disagree with will boo loudly. Short of the actual admission of an epiphany, the best anyone can hope for is a meeting of the minds, a dialogue, an exchange of views. I have had the occasional appearance of victory: long-term or short-term, it’s difficult to judge. Today’s victory can sour with tomorrow’s advent. The human mind is notoriously ambiguous.

“Of course, I like agreement, it warms the heart, but I don't expect it; and I like disagreement too, when it is intelligent and carries a thought further, rather than contradicts it a priori, from a different point of departure. These different points of departure make discussion futile and unpleasant.”
To Charles Augustus Strong, 15 September 1939, The Letters of George Santayana, Book Six, 1937-1940, MIT Press, 2004

“Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer: there is nobility in preserving it coolly and proudly through a long youth, until at last, in the ripeness of instinct and discretion, it can be safely exchanged for fidelity and happiness. “
Scepticism and Animal Faith, Scribner's, 1923, p. 69-70