Visions and Dialogue
by Anonymous at 10/15/2004 11:56:00 PM
Amy Said: "Bohm goes on to talk about how discussions are never deeply serious because we won't go into arenas that we hold to be non-negotiable or untouchable. This is where discussion ends....it's also where dialogue begins. Dialogue is less about what we believe to be true (ultimately, our opinions), but why we believe it. "
This dovetails nicely into the Sowell book I have been reading called "A Conflict of Visions : The Ideological origins of political Struggles" (Bohm is queued up next. ) Sowell suggests that there are two dominant visions that determine what we believe (the basis for Why we believe certain things) He defines these visions as either constrained or unconstrained.
Those with the unconstrained vision do not believe that the world or human beings are inherently limited, only limited by the particular beliefs and institutions that are now in place. The operative assumption being that by placing new institutions and encouraging growth in people any problem in the world can be surmounted and solved. This leads to a problem-solving approach in which (near) perfection is sought.
Those with a constrained Vision believe that both the world and human beings are limited in their possiblilities and abilities. The operative assumption here is that the plights of mankind are caused by the nature of man, and inherant limitations in his environment, and all we can hope for is to make the best trade-offs we can. This leads to a process oriented approach where optimization (rather than perfection) is sought
Ultimately I think this probably is the source of our disagreements.
This dovetails nicely into the Sowell book I have been reading called "A Conflict of Visions : The Ideological origins of political Struggles" (Bohm is queued up next. ) Sowell suggests that there are two dominant visions that determine what we believe (the basis for Why we believe certain things) He defines these visions as either constrained or unconstrained.
Those with the unconstrained vision do not believe that the world or human beings are inherently limited, only limited by the particular beliefs and institutions that are now in place. The operative assumption being that by placing new institutions and encouraging growth in people any problem in the world can be surmounted and solved. This leads to a problem-solving approach in which (near) perfection is sought.
Those with a constrained Vision believe that both the world and human beings are limited in their possiblilities and abilities. The operative assumption here is that the plights of mankind are caused by the nature of man, and inherant limitations in his environment, and all we can hope for is to make the best trade-offs we can. This leads to a process oriented approach where optimization (rather than perfection) is sought
Ultimately I think this probably is the source of our disagreements.
It does seem that only perfection is acceptable in many cases. Take the election in Afghanistan. This is a momentous event in Afghanistan's history. 10 million people registered to vote, and the majority of those actually did vote, despite serious threats of violence against them. Somehow we seem to be ignoring this in the US. Why? In part because Karzai's opponents pre-emptively claimed fraud perhaps- the election in Afghanistan isn't likely to be perfect.
Perhaps because any representative government (or any peace for that matter) that comes about as a result of war will be automatically deemed flawed. War is
inherently a manifestation of our imperfection - we as perfectable creatures did not come up with another method of bringing about peace. Therefore we can never celebrate good outcomes from it.
I do not think people are perfectable, and sometimes war is the only way of achieving a greater peace.
» Post a Comment