Schadenfreude Theatre: The Argument Culture vs the Bohm Dialogue Model
Welcome to Schadenfreude Theatre, hosted by Gastrin Bombesin.
GB: For the sake of forsaking the Argument Culture, I propose a demonstration:
Resolved, the Bohm Dialogue Model is superior to the Debate Model of the Argument Culture.
[Scattered audience applause.]
GB: Speaking for the Bohm Dialogue Model is Moulton, the Schmeggegy Scientist. Speaking for the Argument Culture is Barsoom Tork, Anthropologist from Mars. Let's begin with Professor Tork.
BT: I propose to argue that the Argument Culture, with its classical paradigm of taking a position and defending it with maximum zeal, while simultaneously bashing and trashing one's opponent, is a tried and true practice of Earthling Culture, dating back to the dawn of civilization. Who can possibly argue against that?
GB: Moulton, may we have your response?
M: You'll get no argument from me. [Gets up and leaves.]
GB: There you have it, boys and girls. No argument. Who can argue with that?
[The audience sits mostly in stunned silence, except for some nervous laughter.]
[Gastrin Bombesin also gets up and leaves the building.]
[Barsoom Tork nods approvingly and uploads the finished video to YouTube.]
GB: For the sake of forsaking the Argument Culture, I propose a demonstration:
Resolved, the Bohm Dialogue Model is superior to the Debate Model of the Argument Culture.
[Scattered audience applause.]
GB: Speaking for the Bohm Dialogue Model is Moulton, the Schmeggegy Scientist. Speaking for the Argument Culture is Barsoom Tork, Anthropologist from Mars. Let's begin with Professor Tork.
BT: I propose to argue that the Argument Culture, with its classical paradigm of taking a position and defending it with maximum zeal, while simultaneously bashing and trashing one's opponent, is a tried and true practice of Earthling Culture, dating back to the dawn of civilization. Who can possibly argue against that?
GB: Moulton, may we have your response?
M: You'll get no argument from me. [Gets up and leaves.]
GB: There you have it, boys and girls. No argument. Who can argue with that?
[The audience sits mostly in stunned silence, except for some nervous laughter.]
[Gastrin Bombesin also gets up and leaves the building.]
[Barsoom Tork nods approvingly and uploads the finished video to YouTube.]
posted by Moulton | 10:38 AM
5 Comments:
Hi, Barry. I thought I'd let you know that I killed my FB account. I didn't want you to think I'd been kidnapped by terrorists or muffled by academic mufflers, or anything like that. Fact is, there are a whole world full of terrorists (and academic mufflers) out there, as you certainly know, but it's not been my fate to run afoul of them, thus far. And since I'm comfortably out to pasture, as it were, I doubt if anyone gives a dern about what I do, anymore. Aside from you, perhaps.
I miss Archos, blast his bloody soul. I miss his vulnerability and his arrogance. I miss his sheer imperturbability that so ironically but naturally consubstantiates with his naivete and, more or less, ignorance. That's of course not to be in the least depreciative concerning his value an intellect or as a player in the dialogue of der bohm, in the absolute sense.
The problem with someone like me, from your point of view, I would imagine, is that I just don't want to cooperate in any substantive way with what you think will solve the world's deficiency.
For me, the world's deficiency is a matter of definition--that is to say, the world is deficient. That's the definition of the world.
That which is sufficient--well, this gets into where one really has to have read Aristotle--not just read about him, I mean, but read him. The whole of his oeuvre. And of course that of Plato, Plotinus, and a number of other folks, as well. The 18th century English "Neo-Platonist" Thomas Taylor would, of course, be worth glancing at, as well, at least in an initiatory sense, since he brought the thought of the entire pre-Socratic as well as post-Socratic world into Western view before anyone else bothered even to notice them (those pre-Western worlds, I mean).
Point, here, is simply that--as the imaginatively aware American writer Thornton Wilder has a character in his famous play "Our Town" say, "The whole world's wrong."
This is where we start, that is to say.
I've spent a fair amount of brainpower over the past 30 years diagnosing what's wrong with human culture.
Now that I think I have a bead on it (and what a monumental paradigm shift it would take to set it aright), I tend to lean toward those who predict that collapse is the more likely outcome.
Increasingly, I find seasoned observers talking openly about the challenge of staying sane in a manifestly insane world.
This morning, as I was thinking about topics to write about this week, the one that floated to the top was the challenge of healing — not as a means of recovering from an occasional wound, but as a challenge of amping up the rate of healing to keep pace with the rising rate of wounding.
Higs: "The problem with someone like me, from your point of view, I would imagine, is that I just don't want to cooperate in any substantive way with what you think will solve the world's deficien" so what I have to do is dig into that statement. The power of one + 1 has great potential for the healing, if linked to the healing powers of those also engaged in healing web. We heal what can be healed, mind body and soul. We work together to form a trinity with another person willing to co create a links+ page, this way these 2 people dorm the length of 1 unit by activating 1 of these 2 in adding a 3rd dot. bingo a sprout SaveNaturefree
Sam Chan gave this blog post to ChatGPT, asking it to make this story fun and understandable for a 3rd grader. ChatGPT responded thusly:
«Welcome to the Silly Show Theater! Today's show is hosted by Mr. Bubbles, a funny clown with a big red nose.
Mr. Bubbles: Hello kids! Today we’re gonna see two people talk about different ways to solve problems and share ideas. Should they argue like superheroes fighting bad guys or should they talk calmly like friends at a tea party? 🤔
[Crowd claps and giggles]
Mr. Bubbles: Our first guest is Max, a scientist who loves experiments and crazy inventions. Our second guest is Zork, an alien from Mars who studies how humans talk and solve problems.
Let’s start with Zork, our Martian friend.
Zork: Earthlings, I think people have always liked to argue and prove they are right by acting like heroes in movies. They talk loudly, and sometimes they make fun of others to win arguments. It's like an ancient Earth tradition! Who can beat that?
Mr. Bubbles: Max, what do you think?
Max: Well, I won’t argue with you, Zork. [Max winks and leaves with a spring in his step.]
Mr. Bubbles: Wow, kids! Max decided not to argue. He showed us another way people can talk. By not arguing, he’s like someone who offers a friendly handshake instead of a boxing glove.
[The audience is quiet, then some kids start to giggle.]
[Mr. Bubbles also bounces away like a kangaroo.]
[Zork gives a thumbs up and disappears in a beam of light.]
So, what Max did was kind of like the Bohm Dialogue Model, which is a fancy way of saying that sometimes it's better to talk nicely and listen to each other rather than arguing like superheroes in a battle.
And Zork was showing the Argument Culture, which is when people think they have to fight with words to prove they are right.
Sometimes it's cool to be like superheroes, but other times, it's even cooler to be like friends having a nice chat over cookies and juice.»
Sam Chan then asks rhetorically, "Which way do you think is better?"
Quick, somebody find me a 3rd grader to provide their opinion on which version they prefer (and why).
Post a Comment
<< Home