Introduction

There are three types of conversations

One can converse about people. Gossip, bragging and evaluations are these type of conversations. Judgments are the major bases for input. Facts have little importance.

Or one can converse about events. Generally, this conversations concern what happened and the meanings of an event. It may discuss the people in the event but only as needed for context. For example, one can converse about the Super Bowl or a Party and include relevant participants. Facts are the major bases for input and judgments are usually minimize. Nevertheless, judgments are the underpinning of these conversations.

And, one can converse about ideas. It is extremely difficult to convey ideas since words are uniformly inadequate. The inadequacy of words arise from our unique understanding of their meanings. For example, when we both see red we are physiologically experiencing different perceptions. Nevertheless, we call it “red” it is because we have agreed that each of our unique perceptions will be called “red.” Color blind people have also agreed to call their perception “red” even though they can’t see color!  Such learned agreements are uncommon when it comes to ideas.  Moral judgments presented as cognitive or objective arguments are the major bases for ideas. Facts are important only for the participants who agree to them. Not agreeing on facts make them irrelevant.

Facts about my thinking:

Words cannot express my thinking but that is all I have. There are more nuances and complexities than I can express.

All my thinking is relative since absolutism is an illusion. Humans relate to their world; therefore, everything is relative to them. Absolutism is an impossible ideal. Nevertheless, the way I relate is fairly absolute for me. It is not situational or contexual since in each near identical situations I relate the same.

(Near) Universal agreements are possible. Pleasure is a near universal Good and Pain a near universal Evil. Yet when pain is pleasure (i.e., Good) such as in Sado-Masochism or self-flagellation confusion arises. Is not hurting a Masochist Good or Evil? Does not hurting a Masochist make me a Sadist since I get pleasure in not hurting people?

People do their Good and rarely go out to do Evil. Therefore, conflict is always Good versus Good. Nevertheless, one group’s Good is another group’s Evil. 

Acceptable and NOT Acceptable Comments

Comments about a person’s ideas are acceptable. Comments (gossip, bragging or evaluations) about the person are NOT acceptable.

Comments about events as they relate to ideas are acceptable. Comments only about the events are NOT acceptable. 

Comments are closed.