RE: The Denlist significance

["Vic Forte" <vicforte@lineone.net>]

> "Under what circumstances, and in what sense, is that true, or
> false, or perhaps meaningless?"

I admire the compassionate generosity of David's comment. Nevertheless it
seems to come from the hand of someone who is calm, and rational. Many
statements that one comes across are not so calm and rational. Those that
seem to be about the world of fact are often better interpreted as
statements about the person making the statement; their feelings and their
state of mind.

So it may also be good to ask "what does this tell me about the person,
their values and their world view. What does this tell me about what is
important to them?"

The world that we see is the world that we choose to attend to. What we
choose to attend to is determined by what we are inside.

> It is hard to argue with anything
> until it is clearly stated.

Many people do not state things clearly, but feel their rightness with
passion. It is not normally a good idea to try and argue. But it can be a
good idea to attempt to paraphrase until the other person says "yes that is
exactly what I meant", even when one does not believe it to be true oneself.
This is an exercise recommended by Carl Rogers.

I was very interested in Bill Scherchenbach's statement:

> in Peirce's work.  His
> "niftiest" ideas added retroduction to induction and deduction.
> (Retroduction starts with emotion to come up with a theory; induction
starts
> with a physical observation to come up with a theory; deduction starts
with
> a logical concept to come up with a theory.)

There's a lot of retroduction about. Most of the time, values and feelings
come first. Reasoning follows. If the reasoning does not quite work out,
then tough, we'll bend the reasoning to fit! Much of politics is like this.
You start out with a gut feel - one that you think others share - and mould
your argument to fit.

As we can see in Northern Ireland - the "facts" serve the (non-rational)
values of the protagonist. There is little use in appealing to truth of
falsity. Somehow we have to find an accommodation and a "weltanschauung" of
our own which is broad enough accommodate different world views. A place
where contradictions may co-exist in peace and respect.

This is quite different from the concept that all questions can be resolved
in "truth" or "fact".

If I can be aware of, live with, my own contradictions perhaps I stand a
chance of surviving in this world.

PS the only reason for this post is so that I could write "Weltanschauung"
<g>.

Best Wishes
Vic Forte
vic@vichara.f9.co.uk