Honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion...

Discussion in 'Introduce Yourself' started by ding, Oct 25, 2016.

  1. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    23,124
    Thanks Received:
    1,068
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +9,315
    Honesty is achieved when one becomes objective and removes all concerns for self and has no preference for an outcome. When one does that all fears melt away because they can't be wrong because they don't have a preference.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,528
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,581
    Well ding to be "honest" with you
    I don't know anyone who can be completely objective and free of bias.
    That's why we have to take turns, on who can best address which issues or conflicts in which cases.
    We are not going to be fair in ALL cases.
    Nobody is that perfect.

    What we CAN be honest about is where we have biases and conflicts of interests/beliefs.
    We may still not be able to "remove ourselves" enough to be equally objective.

    We can be HONEST about our biases, and where we just can't ad dress something neutrally,
    and be fair enough to ask someone else to step in and help balance it out where we are going to favor one view over another.

    Nobody I know can defend protect and represent all people, views and groups equally in all situations.

    As it is said in Christianity, only Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous
    and every other human being falls short because of our biases from our experiences and perceptions that are all different.
    Together we can cover all bases, but not any one of us alone.

    Like you said, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
    To be made perfect means to be made whole.
    When you add all humanity together,
    then collectively, yes, we can universally represent all that is out there within human scope.

    But not one of us can do it alone.
    When we are as honest and transparent as possible,
    we will have the honesty to admit where our biases and limitations are
    and ask help of others to fill in those gaps.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    23,124
    Thanks Received:
    1,068
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +9,315
    Being objective isn't easy. The key is to not have a preference for an outcome. The more one does it, the better one gets at it. So I do believe it is possible to be that way almost all of the time.

    I believe change occurs through concentric circles. We emulate what we see.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,528
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,581
    Now you make two very good points here, ding
    I like and align with how you describe objectivity as
    "not having a preference for an outcome"
    That is a VERY clear description, and I think this language
    would be helpful in spelling out FORMAL agreements how
    to deal with political beliefs and biases in public policy and process.

    [Personally, I would specify the difference between
    * having a bias/preference on an outcome
    * letting that affect judgment, and especially imposing it through a public policy decision where other people are objecting
    and DON'T have the same preference for that outcome

    - just because we HAVE a preference, doesn't mean it has to be exerted with unequal influence on the final outcome affecting others
    - just because we don't LET the preferences we have skew the outcome beyond what others consent to equally, given their own preferences.
    doesn't mean we DON'T have a preference on the outcome and "that's why" we're able to do that.

    In mediation, a successful solution tends to have these characteristics
    * both sides acknowledge the final result is not the outcome they originally preferred, but at least it is equal
    * they both see that between them and the other side, both sides had to stretch equally outside
    of what they originally wanted and preferred, in order to give and take and wind up with something
    they can both accept, that at least covers the most important issues they were concerned about and doesn't compromise that,
    and that equally includes both sides interests as much as could be obtained given their differences
    * they both AGREE and CHOOSE/ACCEPT this outcome freely by knowing it is the best and fairest that could be done,
    where neither side feels the other is forcing them MORE into it any more than they are forcing the other side

    So I would say we STILL keep our preferences on the outcome, and still prefer something else.
    But we recognize the other people involved are having to adjust equally on THEIR side,
    and we BOTH agree not to let that stand in the way of working and including
    what the OTHER people ALSO prefer as the outcome, equally as our own preferences.

    I see this with prolife arguments.
    Just because someone is prolife, and PREFERS to have laws that FAVOR prolife,
    doesn't mean that has to affect their judgment and agreement by principle
    to put Constitutional religious freedom principles first, and accommodate the beliefs of other people
    who DON'T share and favor/prefer those same beliefs/bias toward prolife.

    that doesn't change the fact those people STILL have a preference for prolife beliefs and bias in the outcomes.]

    As for the second point you made, this also rings true with me:
    the point about emulating others.

    I agree that we raise the standards by examples we set.
    If we show the mediation works and consensus/inclusion is possible,
    it starts being a choice in people's minds to work toward or at least try for where possible.

    right now, if all people see is bullying and coercion to get anywhere
    "because the two sides of a conflict are not going to change,
    and that's they only way to get anything done or passed at all"
    then that's what they keep resorting to and rewarding.

    I find this trend very disturbing.

    Not only does it negate the Constitutional concepts and principles that
    laws and democratic process should respect and protect individual rights of all people equally
    ie "equal protection of the laws" and "equal justice under law"

    but it sends mixed signals, and makes it harder to enforce a consistent standard:
    on one hand we are telling kids NOT to bully in schools,
    NOT to harass and discriminate against people who are "different"
    but then we see our own national and party leaders
    actively and verbally demonize and blame "people of the other affiliation or group/party"
    as the ENEMY. And we fight to EXCLUDE and dominate over those views in order to defend our own?

    Very conflicting message and approach,
    and one I do not find to be sustainable but destructive
    and not respectful of equal and inclusive relatìonships.

    Mutual respect is key; where people go into arguments already "seeing the other person as representing a group they want to attack exclude and put down", if both sides do that, they won't get anywhere but just attack and defend. Our best bet is addressing each other "one on one" where there is a chance to get away from the fear that a whole other group is out to oppress us.
    if we can hear what each other is saying, is concerned about and trying to address,
    we can apply that to the larger groups and communicate across barriers of perception
    keeping them at odds with each other. change occurs on the "molecular level" and usually
    in tandem where two individuals from different viewpoints equally influence each other
    to understand where the other is coming from instead of just rejecting and competing.
    Because the dynamic is mutual, it is not a matter of one side forcing the other to change,
    but both expand their process to include the other, and not necessarily change the existing
    beliefs that more often remain in conflict, just the approach to managing this diversity or conflict.

    I appreciate the fact you already come here with the
    understanding there is a higher way to approach people despite conflicting beliefs.
    And yes, that it is more powerful than the coercive means used to try to destroy and control others to dominate.

    I like the language you use to describe this,
    and hope you will continue to influence and share with others
    so more people can get used to seeing how this
    approach works in practice.

    I agree with you that the influence rubs off on others,
    and changes how we do things. And in return other
    people teach and influence us, to learn how to manage
    more people coming from those diverse backgrounds and beliefs.
    So the gain is mutual and we grow toward a more
    inclusive and respectful environment, where it is safer to
    talk through issues and resolve them diplomatically, by free and informed choice
    and not relying so much on coercion and the domination/bullying games we see in party politics and media.

    Thank you so much ding
    more power to you
    and may the meek rise to the top
    establishing a more consistent standard
    of what is possible by conflict resolution and
    consensus decision making to end the need for bullying politics!

    Hats off and respect to you!
    Keep up what you are doing
    and may your circle of influence
    be multiplied infinitely and virally, locally and online, to
    become the exponential change we'd like to see in the world....

    Yours truly, Emily
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2016
  5. ChrisL
    Offline

    ChrisL Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    71,714
    Thanks Received:
    19,978
    Trophy Points:
    2,320
    Location:
    Wherever the wild things are!!
    Ratings:
    +47,013
    We love Emily, but she tends to write novels. :D
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  6. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    23,124
    Thanks Received:
    1,068
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +9,315
    Thank you Emily, I enjoyed reading your post very much. I agree with many of the things you have written. Here is another idea for you to consider....

    virtue is the ultimate organizing principle.
     
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,528
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,581
    Okay ding I think you hit on the secular equivalent
    of the Biblical scripture:
    The greatest of all is Charity/Love.

    There are many translations/variations, and the
    more specific meaning of the word Love in this context is Charity.

    Love is one of the names of God,
    but so is Wisdom and Justice (which I equate with the secular
    name for Jesus or Christ Jesus as Restorative Justice / Justice with Mercy / Peace and Justice)

    Virtue reminds me of the Confucian Trinity
    * Jen as the Greatest Virtue or Benevolence
    * Yi as the Highest Principles embodied in man
    * Li as the Outward Expression of Moral Standards in Conduct

    you and I could probably go on and on, about translating
    the equivalents of these principles in this system or that one.

    How the 5 principles in Confucianism might parallel with the
    Cardinal Virtues in Catholicism or the Precepts in Buddhism.
    (I already show the parallels between the 4 noble truths in
    Buddhism and the 4 spiritual laws in Christianity, how one
    begs the questions and the other symbolizes the answers.
    And the 3 Refuges compared with the Holy Trinity, and
    the 2 core principles of Wisdom and Compassion compared
    with the Two Great Commandments upon which all laws
    and prophets/teachings are based)

    I believe if we can align our "language" for these universal principles,
    we'd find each person or system translates them slightly differently,
    but the "relationship" between the three levels is still supposed to lead to harmony.

    So the goal is the same even if we focus and frame the questions
    and answers in different contexts and terms. Again, about the
    whole being greater than the sum of the parts, if we take the
    collective of all these systems together, we cover all the truth
    out there we can possibly capture in human words and perceptions.

    Each system serves to address certain situations and audiences,
    and together, the synergy between them covers all levels and ground.

    If we fear each other's groups and our differences in priorities,
    and fear we cannot resolve our conflicts, we lose out.

    Learning to coordinate between the different groups with different
    focus and tasks is like an Orchestra, where we not only have to
    distinguish who belongs in the trumpets or the woodwinds, and
    what instrument and key each person plays in, but help each
    musician and section to play their parts in tune, in time and in harmony/balance
    with what everyone else is playing. We are all different for a reason,
    and these are all necessary to the whole.

    I hope we can learn to sing together, and help each other to succeed
    in whatever role or purpose we add to this whole universe, for the betterment of humanity.

    With the internet and the interaction of groups from all over,
    our learning curve should be exponentiated. Both the very best
    and very worst comes out, but that's all part of the process.

    Thanks again for being here, keep posting more threads.
    Thanks especially for keeping it short, and I certainly hope your
    influence rubs off on me. For the sake of everyone else here!

    Hugs and smiles
    Yours truly, Emily
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    23,124
    Thanks Received:
    1,068
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +9,315
    I could not possibly agree more. Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two caring people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two thoughtful people will always have a better relationship than two thoughtless people. And on and on and on. Not some of the time. All of the time.
     
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,528
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,581
    Thanks ding
    what I usually run into with people
    is each person has strengths in some areas, and fall short in others.
    So the two people help each other lift up the good parts, bring out the best sides,
    but also address the worst faults that also come out.

    I can be thoughtful in some areas but a total DOOF in others and miss the obvious!
    So with each person, we bring out our opposites and learn how to use that.
    If I can learn to be "more like you" in areas where I NEED to be "more like that"
    then I follow your example and "emulate" you. And vice versa.

    The beauty is that it tends to be an even trade out of swapping strengths for weaknesses on both sides.
    and I must say again, as you said, there is a GREATER benefit in this "even exchange"
    where both people come out AHEAD. so by the math of life, the debts become bigger surpluses.
    There is expansion and multiplication, like the bread and fishes feeding the multitude.

    We need to stop this right now.
    If you and I keep on with this, this will bring on the second coming
    the final rapture, and I don't think the planet is quite ready.

    I have laundry to do and my hair is a mess.
    Not ready for the Kingdom of God.

    Please stop here, if you keep going,
    there's only one place this is going to lead.

    Are you sure the world is ready?
    For two of us? In agreement, do you know what's going to happen
    when that aligns and escalates?

    C'mon at least post some things where we can disagree
    and start projecting emotionally "just a little bit" like everyone else.

    We can't agree on everything, that's going to lead to mass consensus.
    And as everyone else has preached to me on here, "that's not possible
    in our lifetime".

    Is it fair for you and I to be right, that people can resolve differences
    and reach harmonious agreements? and make so many other people wrong?
    What kind of math is this? I thought majority ruled!

    ha ha, keep posting ding, and we'll see the revolution come in, of peace and justice made manifest,
    that is overdue on our timeclock but not scheduled on a lot of people's calendars....
     
  10. Yarddog
    Offline

    Yarddog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2014
    Messages:
    6,291
    Thanks Received:
    1,573
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,325

    And I expect you to have a report on each one on my desk by Tuesday, Chris. No fair using Clif notes !
     
    • Funny Funny x 3

Share This Page