BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Why We Disagree

  
 
Smoothly
19:24 / 14.11.05
There are a lot of disagreements on Barbelith, but I can't find a thread on how disagreement happens, so I thought I'd start one.

I've tried this opening post a few times using various examples as examples or case-studies but I really want to avoid restarting debates on specifics, or about whether I've located the key points of difference etc, so I'm going to try it strictly in the abstract - at least to begin with. I'm thinking more about (broadly) philosophical differences than cultural ones (why you like The Shawshank Redemption and I don't), but maybe that distinction is a false one.

So, given the seemingly limitless instances in which people disagree with one another, it feels natural to see states of disagreement between intellectual agents as inevitable or necessary. But the fact that we sometime do agree (that like-mindedness is possible, that our experience is similar enough for two or more people to draw the same conclusion) makes me wonder what the difference is between those cases and the ones where the gulf is not bridged.

Is it that, fundamentally, people have difference axioms - axioms they share with some people, but not others? Are arguments attempts to backward engineer disagreements to find these axioms, at which point (assuming these axioms are, by definition, unchangeable) we can stop arguing?
This is tempting, because it means that all disagreements can be resolved to a point where no further justification could be expected from either side, but I'm really not sure it works like that. Certainly doesn't seem to work like that in practice.


Anyway, the anatomy of disagreement. When you disagree with someone, what's going on? How come sometimes we disagree when sometimes we agree? Do all disagreements have something in common, structurally? To what extent can disagreement be resolved?
 
 
matthew.
03:42 / 15.11.05
I've been thinking about this topic for quite some time. Thanks for creating it, Smoothly.

I believe disagreement comes from personal assumptions, cultural assumptions, sociological assumptions. I mean, we all have them, don't we? I think people have a set of assumptions about the world and these come from their parents, their culture, the media, art, history, everything. These assumptions cause the disagreements between people.

My assumption about the nature of disagreement is fundamentally one of "nurture" instead of "nature". While I definitely allow the "nature" aspect of this, I think that assumptions are inherently produced by your environment. And if assumptions cause disagreement, then disagreement comes from influence.

My idea about this is predicated on the fact that disagreement is defined as proto-ideological conflict. Like whether or not eating angels is nutritional. Or who's better: ninjas or pirates. (I say, "proto-" because I don't think that Smoothly meant vast gigantic political systems, but everybody's free to disagree with me - )
 
 
werwolf
09:52 / 15.11.05
great thread, smoothly.
here's my 2 cents.

[quote matt] I believe disagreement comes from personal assumptions, cultural assumptions, sociological assumptions. I mean, we all have them, don't we? I think people have a set of assumptions about the world and these come from their parents, their culture, the media, art, history, everything. These assumptions cause the disagreements between people. [/quote]

this reminds me of karl sabbagh's first law for the 2004 edge anniversary - "never assume.", he wrote. i agree with matt, that many differences and disagreements in human societies are directed by assumptions. while i am not sure whether they are the only source for disagreement, i am also of the opinion that assumptions make for a majority of misunderstandings and disagreements. and since many disagreements also spring from misunderstandings, i'd wager (assume) that assumptions are a major reason for disagreement.

[quote Smoothly Weaving] Is it that, fundamentally, people have difference axioms - axioms they share with some people, but not others? Are arguments attempts to backward engineer disagreements to find these axioms, at which point (assuming these axioms are, by definition, unchangeable) we can stop arguing? [/quote]

this on the other hand is something i totally disagree with. in my experience this seems not only highly unlikely but actually quite impossible. i have never met any 2 people who could even in one specific point share exactly the same axiom. extrapolating from that i assume (again) that there are as many different unique individual viewpoint (the 'axiom' smoothly was refering to) as there are different unique individuals, because no 2 people have had the same experiences, the same starting points, the same environments and so forth.
what happens when agreement is found, i think, is that the parties involved in a disagreement arrive at a mutual conclusion and/or find out that they have similar results. that would mean that arguments are actually attempts, not at finding the 'shared axiom', but at aligning different streams of thought.

the above examples of my agreeing and disagreeing pretty much explain my pov on disagreements.
. origin of disagreement: basically different assumptions and/or different and/or misunderstandings targets will lead to disagreement. boldly put, i think all disagreements stem from one or the other or both. that's easy enough to spot.
. function of disagreement: there are 3 purposes for disagreement i can think of - defense, offense, improvement. these three functions will also command the further growth and outcome of the disagreement. when defending my pov by disagreeing i will not let any argument through and will try to rebutt or discard anything that is thrown at me. when going into the offense i want to find weak spots in my counterparts opinions and attack them in order to prove (for whatever reason) that i am right/superior/(something else) in comparison. in the best case a disagreement comes from the wish to improve, like a teacher and student might disagree and then through argument arrive at new, improved conclusions.

smoothly's questions:
When you disagree with someone, what's going on?
- in what way do you mean?
How come sometimes we disagree when sometimes we agree?
- well, i think those are classical instances of defense or offense. you might disagree because you don't like what you hear, although you very well know that it applies. or you disagree because you can't stand that person's guts and want to oppose and contradict him/her/it.
Do all disagreements have something in common, structurally?
- i think so, yes. depending on the combination of functions (defense-defense, defense-offense, and so on) disagreements will most probably follow along similar structural lines. hard pressed to say what they might be, because i'd need to think more about it.
To what extent can disagreement be resolved?
- a disagreement can only be completely resolved if one party changes their 'axiom' to that of the other party. and i mean EXACTLY that of the other party. since that seems highly unlikely to me, i'd suggest that all resolutions to disagreements are only varying degrees of temporal compromises and memetic alignment.
 
 
Smoothly
12:36 / 15.11.05
I’m too busy to respond to these points properly, but briefly:

My opening post was pretty ill-formed and inarticulate, but I’m glad that people have an idea about what I’m getting at. The ‘assumptions’ that matt and werwolf mention are one of the things I kinda want to look at – because there are assumptions and there are assumptions.
Some assumptions are completely open to revision (eg. ‘Assuming that animals cannot suffer like humans, we are not obliged to treat animals with the same care we afford humans’). That position might very well change if that person came to believe that animals can suffer like humans. However, this example points to another assumption that might be more fundamental, ie. that which applies to one thing, applies to other things identical to it. If someone didn’t accept this then certain disagreements are inevitable and in a sense transparent and to that extent resolvable (albeit into an agreement to disagree) – no more work can be done.
It’s this second kind of assumption (although that probably isn’t a particularly robust example) that I was calling an axiom. The principle of induction might be another axiom. If we disagreed about whether the sun was more likely than not to rise tomorrow, there could be a number of reasons for this. It could be that one party has information about the imminent destruction of the Earth – which is something where, through discussion, agreement could still be found; one party might be convinced by the other. But it might be because one party accepts inductive reasoning as valid and the other doesn’t. In that case, disagreement is inevitable. Can all disagreements be pared down to this kind of division?

Shit examples, almost certainly, but I hope you get the idea.

When you disagree with someone, what's going on?
- in what way do you mean?

I mean, what is happening when someone disagrees with you about something, in much the same way as you might ask what is happening when someone is digesting something. What are the processes, what are the relevant structures and reactions. How can we affect it?
More broadly, given that we sometimes agree (given that we are similar enough for that) how come we might also disagree. The vehicles are clearly very similar, so why do we get different mileage? Is there are set of disagreements that can potentially be resolved into agreement, and another set that can't?

More to say, particularly on the culture/nurture thing and memetic alignment (are you saying that agreement is just coincidental, werwolf?), but I just wanted to clarify what I’m getting at.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
18:04 / 15.11.05
"....we should take disagreement to mean a determined kind of speech situation: one in which one of the interlocators at once understands and does not understand what the other is saying. Disagreement is not the conflict between one who says white and another who says black. It is the conflict between one who says white and another who also says white but does not understand that the other is saying the same thing in the name of whiteness.... Disagreement is not misconstruction. The concept of misconstruction supposes the that one or other of the interlocators do or does not know what they are saying or what the other is saying..." (Ranciere)
 
 
Smoothly
00:21 / 16.11.05
Thanks sdv. That sounds promising.

"we should take disagreement to mean a determined kind of speech situation: one in which one of the interlocators at once understands and does not understand what the other is saying"

Can you explain what that means - to simultaneously understand and not understand what someone is saying? Cos at the moment I'm only halfway there.

Or are you using it as an example of an argument hinging on the acceptance and otherwise of a common axiom (ie. the principle of non-contradiction)?
 
 
werwolf
06:39 / 16.11.05
[quote Smoothly Weaving] I mean, what is happening when someone disagrees with you about something, in much the same way as you might ask what is happening when someone is digesting something. What are the processes, what are the relevant structures and reactions. How can we affect it? [/quote]

not a clue. a real one, at least. i guess that's one for the psychology buffs. gotta mull a bit over that.

[quote Smoothly Weaving] are you saying that agreement is just coincidental, werwolf? [/quote]

partially, yes. it can be influenced by talking and trying to understand what the other party/parties are trying to say, but at the most basic agreement means 2 (or more) different sets of thought patterns have found an approximation of overlap - this must be partially coincidental, because of the very fact that no one can ever fully comprehend any other person. we have totally different and individual experiences and values which have a indvidual history of their own and make us the persons that we are. so one and the same thing can mean entirely opposite things to 2 people. if agreement is not coincidental, than we'd have to sort out each and every item of speech, behaviour, gesture and facial expression (and so on) before we could arrive at 'real' agreement.

[quote sdv] Disagreement is not the conflict between one who says white and another who says black. [/quote]

but, can disagreement not also be that? a conflict between two entirely different principles?
 
 
sdv (non-human)
18:46 / 16.11.05
Disagreement... Humm I'm co-opting the term in the sense of using it to suggest that disagreements take place between speakers who are at least functioning on the same plane, within the same subject area. (As in for example mainstream politicos - a person from the left of the New-labour party and a right wing Tory - both essentially are discussing a common subject area/genre of discourse). This it seems to me makes the necessity of a different concept naming the situation where 'one is saying white and the other is saying black' and that white and black are in fact entirely different subject areas and which cannot be compared and judged within 'a single rule of judgement'

Ranciere is producing 'disagreement' as something which is different from Lyotard's concept of the 'differend'. That is to say that he is using 'disagreement' to produce a difference from a 'differend'. A differend (difference ? if you prefer...) is the a case where a dispute between two speakers cannot be resolved because a rule of judgement, a common understanding cannot be applied to the two speakers arguments, 'white' and 'black' are really different subject areas (genres) entirely. What Lyotard proposes is that a differend implies that 'a universal rule of judgement between heterogenenous genres is lacking in general...'

This list is always full of differends, because there is little commonality between the speakers - so that for example: on the 'fantasy curriculum' thread I may be thinking aloud about post-marxist theories of 'control society and education' whereas others are discussing the wonders of 'free schools' and 'humanistic education' - these are not disagreements but differends. This kind of difference can never be reconciled because they are two entirely different genres of discourse.

Note that I chose the above thread example because it's hopefully obvious that they may/are both correct. Whereas in other disputes it's obvious that one side or the other can never produce an adequate philosophical defense of a proposition, (i.e 'homo superior' or 'anthropomorphism') etc...

Ranciere's understanding are rarer... so the three terms 'agreement', 'disagreement' and 'differend' (difference being a reserved word in my philosophical universe i prefer to use Lyotard's term...(laughs)) do have very different implications.

To use my original political example - it seems to me that a supporter of parlimentary democracy has of necessity to accept that the difference between 'tory' and 'labour' may mark both 'agreement' and 'disagreement' whereas the difference between them - and someone whose politics are un-parlimentary-democratic (i.e. Badiou or myself) is a true 'differend'.


Werwolf/smoothly - i believe that the above responds to your question, but well clarity and philosophical concepts are not easy.... so...?
 
 
Ganesh
22:30 / 16.11.05
Isn't it about individual life experiences shaping individual principles/assumptions/tenets, and the extent of flexibility within differing worldviews?
 
 
Smoothly
02:08 / 17.11.05
For sure. But what I'm wondering is what kinds of things these principles/assumption/tenets are. Some beliefs (at least) are amenable to revision through consideration, education, argument, etc. If all beliefs were like those, I imagine that over time our beliefs would regress towards a mean.

Perhaps disagreement (diversity of beliefs) exists because of a special set of beliefs that are not amenable to evolution in this way. It seems to me that even if this set were small, they could provide a sufficiently uneven foundation for individuals' belief structures to be dramatically misaligned by the time you get to the top.
But perhaps it's not. Perhaps ordinary beliefs can diverge and resist resolution for other reasons. Or perhaps other things are going on (insincerity, denial, false consciousness, etc). Does the imprecision of language get in the way? Are disagreements misunderstandings?...

I apologise for my woolly thinking. I'm trying to think of other ways of approaching this without doing an autopsy on a sample disagreement (although that might be useful). I imagine a race of aliens visiting Earth, observing our philosophical/political/ideological conflicts and saying 'What's going on? On our planet, we've all reached agreement on this stuff. How come you haven't?'
What would you say?

Am I being thick? Is having different beliefs like having different physical characteristics? Is it like having different tastes in food?

sdv - I'll come back to you on the differend idea. I'm still trying to catch up a bit on Ranciere and Lyotard.
 
 
Ganesh
08:57 / 17.11.05
What would you say?

I'd say, "we disagree because every one of us starts life with a unique genetic composition and a unique set of early life experiences. These shape the development of our beliefs, including our individual degree of flexibility around those beliefs.".
 
 
matthew.
13:12 / 17.11.05
Or, Ganesh, as I said, "assumptions" instead of "beliefs"
 
 
Smoothly
00:39 / 19.11.05
It's this flexibility I'm interested in, and the processes by which our beliefs change and evolve. Our genetic composition and early life experience don't set our beliefs in stone (at least not all of them). There are processes in play that bring about change in our beliefs, and I'm trying to better understand that process and its limits.

So, maybe time for an example:
Two people are asked to estimate the number of peanuts in a particular jar of peanuts. They arrive at different estimates; they disagree about how many peanuts there are in front of them. This disagreement will resolve into agreement when the nuts are counted out in front of them.

The estimations differ because of the factors Ganesh mentions. However, they can agree at the end because they share a common belief (assumption, maybe) about how that particular disagreement can be resolved. There is a decision procedure with particular rules that turn disagreement into agreement.
Can all disagreements turn into agreement by following some kind of procedure? If there are some that can't, then what is different about those ones?

sdv argues that there are some disagreements ('differends', as opposed to 'litigations') which can't be resolved because (I hope I understand this properly, sdv) one paty is operating a decision process (or, in Lyotard's view, a genre of phrase linkage) that disqualifies the decision process employed by the other. Further, the source of disagreement is hidden because it falls between the gap in the mismatch between the two frames of reference.

So we sometimes argue about the existence of God as if it were a litigation when there might be a differend. For a certain colour of atheist, 'faith' is not something that can play a useful part in the discourse, while for some believers, faith is central part of their arrival at belief but cannot present this in a schema that disqualifies it.

It would seem to me to be a mistake to confuse differends with litigation or litigations with differends. If a disagreement has the potential to be resolved, it's important we see that. If it's impossible, then it's important to spot that too. Maybe everyone else does that as a matter of course, but I know I often don't.


I'm rambling a bit because it's late, but I'd be interested to hear about anyone's experience of jury duty, where agreement or disagreement within a group of people on a given set of evidence can have enormous consequences for someone.
 
 
Charlus
09:15 / 19.11.05
We disagree because it's human nature.

Do we really need to turn it into some kind of academic discourse?

Isn't variety is the spice of life.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:47 / 19.11.05
Smoothly- I think part of the problem is that we may come to a point in an argument where we need to go away and find evidence but we may both be too busy to do that research (especially if it would take time), so we forget, the thread disappears down the board and we go off instead to argue about whether Ultra Magnus is gayer than Scorponok. Most of the arguments on Barbelith are abandoned (I'm not implying judgement on that) rather than taken to their absolute conclusion.
 
 
Persephone
10:35 / 19.11.05
Do we really need to turn it into some kind of academic discourse?

This is The Head Shop. This is *where* we turn things into academic discourse.

Like in kitchens, you cook.
 
 
The Natural Way
13:43 / 19.11.05
Or breed apes.
 
 
Charlus
08:48 / 20.11.05
Persephone,

Touché.

Disagreements occur mainly from the reasons above put forward above, but also from pride, anger, frustration and a lack of understanding from both parties. Through eyes clouded.It seems to be common sense the reasons for why we argue -but this is just my opinion. Kind of like it's common sense the role the kitchen plays in society.

But we could argue about that too, couldn't we?
 
 
sdv (non-human)
10:19 / 20.11.05
sophist = sophism = academic discourse... now why would a sophist want to deny what it is that sophism stands for... irreconcilable difference.

Or am I mistaken abot what sophism sands for ?
 
 
Ganesh
11:06 / 20.11.05
Our genetic composition and early life experience don't set our beliefs in stone

No, but they arguably set a good deal of our personality in stone, and it's that which partly determines the extent to which we are able to be flexible in terms of belief.
 
 
Persephone
13:11 / 20.11.05
Kind of like it's common sense the role the kitchen plays in society.

But we could argue about that too, couldn't we?

Yes, we could! I think that could be interesting, just to look at "the anatomy of difference" in viewpoints on the role the kitchen plays in society & possibly the role the Head Shop plays in Barbelith, and if it's anything like a kitchen. I would actually prefer not to argue, but simply to look at whether and where we disagree.

I was going to say something earlier about motivation and perception, and the effect of motivation on perception; but as this thread has progressed, I think perhaps that is the psychology of difference & that the anatomy of difference lies beneath. I'm interested in this idea of axioms, I've been rolling that over in my head all week...
 
 
matthew.
00:56 / 21.11.05
sdv, you beat me to the punchline. Damn.

sophist said Disagreements occur... from pride, anger, frustration and a lack of understanding from both parties

Is is that simple, though? If all disagreements stem from a lack of understanding, does that mean one party is misunderstanding, or both? Can one party be unequivocally right, and therefore have the necessary understanding?
(I understand that you have conceded the posts' theories above you; I'm just asking questions to understand)

Ganesh said: No, but they [Our genetic composition and early life experience] arguably set a good deal of our personality in stone...

Arguably? Is there a school of thought that denies genetic composition? And if so, what school of thought would that be?

(Note: All of the above is not supposed to sound snotty or anything. I'm seriously asking these questions....)

(By the way, Ultra Magnus is way more gay that Scorponok )
 
 
Charlus
04:10 / 21.11.05
Persephone,
I am reserving my judgement on motivation being a catalyst in difference, but you argument of perception is one which I think has significant merit. Perception is a response to how one views society and to the what they agree and disagree with. I also think that the level of perception depends on the quality of a persons upbringing. I don't necassarily mean how comfortably they were raised, but what they have been experienced to.Education is one of the contributing factors to this level of quality. I went to both a public and a private school, and I known that private is better than public, in terms of quality. However, this isn't really the issue at hand. Another factor in this idea of "quality" is the influence of parents. And I suppose, the level of interaction that a parent has had on a child. Children who were given freedon to explore themselves in terms of mental capabilties at an early age, encouraged to read, interact with different members of society, solve problems in a rational manner, and to a degree, at the same level as adults will ultimately help them to develop an understanding of themselves, will help them to understand others and thus be more inclined to see both sides of the argument, and understand why they have chosen to take the side that they are inclined to take. But perception also is a word which seems to indicate change. Perceive, perception. Changing, evolving.

Do you think that maturity would fit into this? patience? emotions? If so, where?

I suppose in essence, it is about being able to put yourself in someone elses shoes.
Butn this ideology cannot work in all situations....
 
 
sdv (non-human)
10:27 / 21.11.05
Sophist,

I referred to Lyotard and the differend before -- the problem with your argument is made explicit in one example in the text, where Lyotard discusses the work of the Holocaust denier 'Faurission', for the consequence of your 'understanding' is that you are really suggesting that we should make the effort to understand why the neo-fascist has her/his relationship of denial to the mass murder of 9 million human beings. The differend here does not require communication or even understanding but something else entirely...
 
 
Charlus
21:43 / 21.11.05
Such as???
 
 
sdv (non-human)
14:59 / 22.11.05
imagine, what would you do ?
 
 
Charlus
02:12 / 23.11.05
sdv,

I think that I should point out to you that the way that you read my post was not the way I had intended to have it read. I'm not very articulate at the best of times. But what I was basically saying was not that a higher quality of life should be privileged over another, which seems to be how you have been reading it, rather that a person who has grown up with a certain level of "quality" quality being a more authentic experience -they have an understanding, not an conception of the objects and people around them. will be more rational in future dealings and able to see and argue their points in disagreements more effectively.

If you want to argue this in a philosophical context, then existentialism is a good place to start.

Regards.
 
 
werwolf
06:55 / 23.11.05
sophist - i disagree. i don't think that anyone has an 'understanding' of anything at all. we all have conceptions and preconceptions of things that vary in their degree of applicability. 'understanding' (to me) implies something like absolute truth behind everything, which is a concept that i personally find quite hard to work with and even harder to imagine that any person could grasp such a thing as 'absolute truth'.

which brings me back to the main topic of this discussion about the 'anatomy of disagreement'. there was the question whether all disagreements can be reconciled by following certain procedures.
my first reply would be: no. there are (and there must be) disagreements that cannot be overcome, because they have axiomatic/dogmatic origins. to stress the old and tired god-example: trying to reach an agreement over whether there is or is not a god is futile at this point in time. (and imo will always remain futile.) the only way to reach an agreement in cases like that is to completely replace the basic principle of the other party involved (as i have already suggested further above) which is in fact not actually reaching an agreement but completely demolishing the disagreement by taking away its origin.
on the other hand there are more disagreements that can and do change to agreement than there are not. which again leads me back to a previous post of mine in which i have suggested that all such agreements are approximations and compromises.

the crux of this matter, i think, is the friction resulting from any disagreement and how that friction is affecting parties involved. surely most will agree with me that disagreements can (and sometimes do) lead to very insightful and instructive discussions, whether or not (usually not) they end in agreeing positions or not.

ok. here's an idea what procedure can be used to turn disagreements into beneficial situations:
assuming that any disagreement that leads to a benevolent discussion (results of which are not important) is preferred over any other kind of disagreement, it is to be discussed to which ends parties are disagreeing. if it can be ensured that neither party disagree for the sake of it alone but are genuinely interested in representing and defending their viewpoints, what must be done to settle the situation is the guaranty for all that not a display of force but an exchange is taking place.

erm, yeah, well... here's the second rambler. (too early...) but maybe some of you might know what i mean... or disagree and have a much better idea.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
17:49 / 25.11.05
sophist23 - no text is ever read as the writer of the text intended - and once you 'post a reply' the text is on it's own. You may be right in that the way you are thinking about disagreements lends itself towards 'existential' analyses. Personally however words like 'authentic' are just to problematic to use without the necessary aura of cynicism. One doesn't have to be Adorno to distrust the jargon of authenticity - as for quality - I simply regard this term as being as loaded with dubious intellectual baggage as terms like 'humane' and/or 'humanism'...
 
 
matthew.
14:21 / 26.11.05
I like how this thread has become a disagreement between sdv and sophist.

werwolf - excellent post.
 
 
Smoothly
12:42 / 27.11.05
the only way to reach an agreement in cases like that [the existence of God] is to completely replace the basic principle of the other party involved (as i have already suggested further above) which is in fact not actually reaching an agreement but completely demolishing the disagreement by taking away its origin.

Why wouldn’t that be agreement, werwolf? Demolishing origin of the disagreement was pretty much my working model of how that happens.

And what is exceptional about disagreements over the existence of God? I suggested earlier that it might be what I called (cautiously co-opting the term) a differend. That is, that the disagreeing parties are playing similar games but with different rules. But again, the rules that dictate if and how you can find yourself in agreement with someone are negotiated and amended.

However, I’m dimly aware that I’m assuming agreement to be default – that it is disagreement that stops us agreeing, rather than agreement that stops us disagreeing. I’m assuming, for example, that two identical people (in terms of make up and experience) will always agree. But that might be a mistake, and perhaps the question should be ‘Why Do We Agree’?
 
 
sdv (non-human)
14:45 / 27.11.05
Elsewhere this weekend I traced the following quote for someone in Lyotard's Differend...(paragraph no 198)

"...It could be said that the social is given immediately with a phrase universe (be it the one presented by the tail of a cat) and that it is given as immediately determined by, in principle, the regimen of that phrase, even though it's determination is straightaway the object of another phrase, whose linking on cannot help but be differends between genres of discourse..."

suggesting perhaps that disagreement begins not necessarily with language but the flick of a cats tail or perhaps we might say existence, that is to say difference itself.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
15:01 / 27.11.05
smoothly,

I think you are right in suggesting that disagreement and consequently difference is the norm rather than agreement.

Perhaps agreement is merely a local model in which people with similar experiences and thoughts can agree, 'agreement' can never be expanded into a global model, within which difference is the norm. We cannot expect that a local model can reach the global, through a simple expansion of it's local arguments. The expansion of 100s of different agreements would surely be the confusion of languages and the collapse of the tower of Babel. Babylon wanted universal sameness built out from a local level. Which is simply unachievable...
 
 
Smoothly
16:03 / 27.11.05
Hmm. I've probably been taking laughably structuralist approach to the whole question. Need to do some reading, I reckon.
 
 
werwolf
08:58 / 29.11.05
[quote Smoothly Weaving] Why wouldn’t that be agreement, werwolf? Demolishing origin of the disagreement was pretty much my working model of how that happens. [/quote]

i'm probably nitpicking, but i understood agreement as overcoming previous disagreement by finding a mutual consensus. 'agreement' as in 'we are of the exact same opinion, therefore we agree.' was not what i meant. where there's no disagreement - and there is no disagreement if we share the same dogma / axiom - there cannot be agreement (in the way that i meant). actually i'm quite sure that i'm just juggling semantics. my point is that reaching an agreement means approximating each others viewpoints / opinions. by replacing the basic principle of party x with the principle of party y there can be no approximation, because (put logically) it becomes: bp x = bp y. that is not an approximation. % can we agree on that? %

[quote Smoothly Weaving] And what is exceptional about disagreements over the existence of God? I suggested earlier that it might be what I called (cautiously co-opting the term) a differend. That is, that the disagreeing parties are playing similar games but with different rules. [/quote]

i have to admit that i didn't really understand that whole 'differend'/'difference' thing.

[quote sdv] Perhaps agreement is merely a local model in which people with similar experiences and thoughts can agree, 'agreement' can never be expanded into a global model, within which difference is the norm. [/quote]

ah, yes, i agree. that would also strengthen my viewpoint of agreeing being only an alignment and approximation of various memetic concepts.

@ matt: thank you. *blush*
 
  
Add Your Reply