 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
In order to make sense of human action there must be a precise goal in mind describing what constitutes nonsense. In other words: If human action is contradictory then one must identify the contradiction if the idea is to resolve the contradiction.
Simply:
Human beings conflict with other human beings. In other words: Human beings fail to negotiate agreement and worse: human beings fail to negotiate an agreement to disagree. A failure to negotiate agreement will cease human cooperation for the people who fail to negotiate agreement. A failure to negotiate an agreement to disagree, once negotiated agreement has failed, results in conflict. Conflict is human interaction resulting from the failure to negotiate an agreement to disagree once the failure to agree has failed.
Example:
A person or persons live near another person or persons. One person meets another person on a road that has only enough room for one person to pass through. Picture a valley between two properties. It takes one hour to pass through the choke point. Both people meet in the center, one half hour into the Gap, on a blind hill. Perhaps both people are driving vehicles filled with property to be sold to each others neighbors.
Both people reach the top of the hill and meet. They both stop to avoid a collision. If either person proceeds the other will have to back up or the collision will occur. If both proceed the collision will occur with greater force.
Is it not obvious that one must negotiate?
Is it not further obvious that one cannot negotiate alone?
In order to make sense of human action, in order to accomplish that task and have the remotest chance of success, one must negotiate an answer with another one.
If one professes to make sense of human action without negotiation, then, one might find reason to simply shoot the other human being in the head, take all his property, and reverse all his efforts to proceed peacefully.
One might endeavor to project one's own mind into the mind of another to figure out what is going on in the silent head - putting self in another's shoes; so to speak. That is an imprecise ability, at best, to accurately make sense of that which cannot be known i.e. thoughts residing in another person's head. It is a clear prejudice for self and one's own ability to know better than another about another; even better than the other's own thoughts, if, one refuses to listen.
Have I defined the mind of a dictator?
Is there any sense in the practice of exclusion?
Beware of someone who refuses to negotiate. That someone may be suffering from falsehood or worse; one may have met a dictator or worse - one may have met a dictator’s helper who is merely following orders.
Dictators can be bribed. A fervent believer will do as ordered and the first order is to refuse to listen.
This diatribe, not to be listened to at all, rather, this is just a statement open for discussion on a road having no boundaries, an honest, welcome, open, voluntary expression of thought to be ignored, rejected, or whatever.
Perhaps this diatribe is misplaced. It is a public forum. I have linked a specific communication offered by a specific person. Perhaps my efforts to put myself in another’s shoes has reached a measure of despotism.
I may be guilty of error.
My intent is to negotiate. My cart is filled with equity. My cart may be filled with garbage; to others. Others won't know what is in my cart, of course, if they refuse to look in it.
I am curious as to why one would be inclined to refuse to look. Perhaps we are all too busy.
My diatribe is, so far, a huge cart with a very small item in the corner. I'll pass more time filling up my cart while I listen for the voice of others on this road that I call liberty.
Liberty is life earned.
Time to read