HI Paul,
I would say the issue is that folks attach worth to the ideas they hold,
neglecting the act of focusing itself. Both parts are important!
Rand occasionally made the same mistake. She once went to a philosophy class
conducted by Dr. John Hospers. Students were encouraged to state any ideas they
like, with Hospers gently getting them to the source of their ideas. Rand
criticized the instruction. From her point of view, since Hospers knew the
truthful answers, why not teach those from the outset? Hospers replied that he
wanted the students to experience using reason with respect to their own ideas.
Rand immediately agreed:)

best wishes always,
Mike Rael

Paul Mawdsley <paul5mawdsley@...> wrote:
--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Jenna" <gonesavage@...>
wrote:
> I wonder though: does disagreement *necessarily* entail disrespect
>and hatred? Why is it so hard to agree to disagree? Why are
>differences so hard to fathom-- whether in opinion, ways of
>thinking, or way of life? If those who differ from me don't try to
>force their views on me-- from the point of a gun to whatever kind
>of social blackmail, then I say live and let live!
>
> --J
>

Let's flip this thought around. I can genuinely respect your
intrinsic value. I can recognize that, like myself, you have been
born into this existence without a reliable set of instructions and
are using your senses, your mind, and your will to try to figure it
all out. I can realize that, like me, you are trying to gather up
the evidence, create integrations, form a perspective, reality test
your point of view, and make choices in your life from the
continually evolving perspective you are carving. When we compare
notes, we can disagree. Sometimes our disagreements can be
passionate. So what? That means we both understand the importance of
ideas. It doesn't mean our current ideas MUST be right. We are both
independently striving to create our own integrated perspective and
a satisfying life. Being able to compare notes should be of benefit
to both of us. It allows us both to get closer to the truth.

I should not be threatened by you. You have no power to change my
perspective or cause my actions without my consent. Only I have the
power to shape my view and cause my actions. I am free from social
intimidation.

At the end of the day, we are fellow explorers who have more in
common than we have separating us. Let's agree to disagree, come to
understand where our views diverge and where they intersect, share
our stories, and see if we have any common goals. If we start with a
basic mutual respect, we might even discover the roots of a
friendship.

This view has a very different spirit to: I am right; you are wrong;
eat shit and die. Which spirit is more evolved? Which spirit is open
to considering and integrating more evidence? Which spirit shows
evidence of healthy self-esteem and an integrated psyche? Which
spirit is more free from social manipulation?

Why "does disagreement *necessarily* entail disrespect >and hatred?"
When parties assume they have some kind of special contact with the
truth, with the absoluteness of reality� whether through
scriptures, divine inspiration, Objectivist epistemology, or the
empirical method� conflicting views are seen, not as information to
be integrated, but as contradictions to be destroyed. When one
thinks his view is the attainment of an absolute rather than one
relative perspective amongst many, disagreements are met with
disrespect and hatred because any other view is necessarily wrong.
There is no impulse to understand and integrate views that conflict
with one's own. This is not even a potential choice. Any view that
conflicts with an absolute must be wrong, comes from wrong thinking,
and is held by wrong characters. Such views, thinking and characters
should be "righteously" attacked as a malignancy or the embodiment
of evil.

Paul






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]