![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Because often, when I write a post, my next long chain of thought regards how I came to write that post...
I tend to squick whenever I see something that purports to (or could be taken to have) put the lie to a topic without simple truth values. I tend to squick when only one side of a debate is in evidence at any particular locale. I don't like complex issues treated as simple.
But what makes me stop and think twice is that, in a lot of cases, that's not what's going on, and I know that. I'm aware that the person making the case isn't trying to make a case to the exclusion of other conclusions, just exploring one particular permutation of a complex issue. So, being aware of that, why do I still react as I do?
I'm not sure. Part of it likely has to do with this black-and-white culture, in which absolutes are most prized and often assumed. Part of it may be tied to the fact that I'm a frequent devil's advocate – even if I don't agree with a position, even if I find it quite repugnant, actually, if I can see the reasoning behind it and others don't, I feel the need to explain. Maybe it's because I'm drawn to the interactions of ideas above the ideas themselves: I need to complete the picture, even if I can't.
It does make me uncomfortable, this urge to engage people on things they weren't even saying. I don't think we should have to live in a world where people, in order to explore one thing, must explicitly disclaim any disavowal of all other things. But I also need to see question asked, shades of grey explored.
Huhn.
I tend to squick whenever I see something that purports to (or could be taken to have) put the lie to a topic without simple truth values. I tend to squick when only one side of a debate is in evidence at any particular locale. I don't like complex issues treated as simple.
But what makes me stop and think twice is that, in a lot of cases, that's not what's going on, and I know that. I'm aware that the person making the case isn't trying to make a case to the exclusion of other conclusions, just exploring one particular permutation of a complex issue. So, being aware of that, why do I still react as I do?
I'm not sure. Part of it likely has to do with this black-and-white culture, in which absolutes are most prized and often assumed. Part of it may be tied to the fact that I'm a frequent devil's advocate – even if I don't agree with a position, even if I find it quite repugnant, actually, if I can see the reasoning behind it and others don't, I feel the need to explain. Maybe it's because I'm drawn to the interactions of ideas above the ideas themselves: I need to complete the picture, even if I can't.
It does make me uncomfortable, this urge to engage people on things they weren't even saying. I don't think we should have to live in a world where people, in order to explore one thing, must explicitly disclaim any disavowal of all other things. But I also need to see question asked, shades of grey explored.
Huhn.
