RSS 
E-Mail12 comments
Postmodern dialogue?! While there are many definitions for the word or category ‘postmodern,’ the way I’m employing the term here is in the broad generic sense that ultimate knowledge (truth) escapes us, whether that is because it cannot be known or is helplessly situational; i.e., it’s up to individual perspective(s).
Like other levels of development on the spiral of consciousness (such as warrior, traditional, modern) the postmodern level of consciousness carries its own set of dignities and disasters. What I will attempt to do in this post is mention some ideas I have centered around one of its plusses, even though this simultaneously means the possibility that some will no doubt miss the point and reply with an entire litany of minuses (oh the joy of blogging!).
Dialogue or ‘conversation’ (a word, thanks to my friend Brian McLaren, that is all the rage within some sectors of discussion today) is important in just about every area of life I can conceive of. It’s an important element in all relationships, be they familial, political, spiritual, religious or educational. And it seems that all good dialogue demands a certain degree of openness about or sensitivity toward the idea that none of us knows everything – even within the universe of what we ‘think’ we may know – and THAT, I’m suggesting, is the cornerstone of dialogue. It’s called ‘humility.’
Since mine is a world of research, I’m often staggered at the thought of what I don’t know and sometimes dismayed at what I thought I knew that, as it turned out, I really didn’t. But this is a good thing – something that’s good for all of us – because it alters or should alter the way we converse with others. At a minimum it seems it should inspire us to err toward the side of congeniality.
As I flit through the blogging world I’m often disappointed in the real lack of conversation taking place. A lot of people seem to be speaking past one another, missing the point of posts only to latch onto pet-peeves or to indulge in the art of scapegoating, demonization of others or weaving wild speculative conspiratorial theories. Perhaps it’s the anonymity of the internet beast itself that is to blame for occasional episodes of disrespectfulness that seem to squirm their way out of us before we could catch our tongue – a forum to vent or rage in ways we’d never do in person. I’m sure I’ve been guilty of this, how ’bout you?
In light of the enormity of the world’s problems, this is unfortunate. If ever there were a time to sit down and talk things through, to share ideas – even ones that require us to be vulnerable – I think that time is now.
So much war. So much killing. So much violence and hatred and bigotry. It’s time for an alter call of humility and graciousness.
Here’s hoping for a world of peaceful dialogue!
12 comments to “A Postmodern Case for Dialogue”
-
-
LOVE this post! Maybe I should add “Proper Blogging Behavior” to my elementary curriculum. Peace must begin with an intention to be peaceful, in person or through the barrier of technology. After reading some comments from Wednesday, I can see you are walking the walk.
-
Blogging online about current events, religion etc. requires making an opinion, sometimes forcefully….see your post of Wednesday. I see a lot of “scapegoating, demonization of others” in that write up. Dialogue, conversation, debate of the points raised should be encouraged. In my reply I tried to answer some of your claims with cited information. You state: “I’m often staggered at the thought of what I don’t know and sometimes dismayed at what I thought I knew that, as it turned out, I really didn’t. But this is a good thing – something that’s good for all of us – because it alters or should alter the way we converse with others”.
You are welcome!
Have a wonderful Independence Day weekend, in remembrance of the birth of our nation after a hard fought war.
Politics aside, I appreciate your blog and exploration of SBNR.
-
Ideally, this statement seems true “never justify the taking of innocent life.”…but in reality it isn’t.
Osama bin laden is running toward a crowded mall with a detonator in one hand and a child in the other. If you shoot Osama, the detonator will go off and the child will die…because of your action. However, you may prevent a greater loss of life by stopping him before he reacheds his target area. If you do not shoot and he detonates the bomb dozens and dozens of people will die, including the child. Would you shoot? Does the loss of one child justify the saving of dozens more? And no, singing kumbaya will not stop him…or engaging him in dialogue…or pleading.
If one uses the Bible as their ethical / moral guideline…the Bible says Thou shalt not murder…not thou shalt not kill.Interesting discussion (I just came across, don’t know anthing about the parties)
http://www.clal.org/ss46.htmlWar, Ethics and Values: An Interview with Brad Hirschfield
“So in the end we come up against two equally distorted approaches. Either we tell ourselves we’ll only get the bad guys – which leads us to demand an end to the war when we find that war does not distinguish between the innocent and the guilty – or we tell ourselves that they are all inhuman and regard every Afghani living under Taliban rule, from five year old children to Mullah Omar, equally as the bad guys. There must be a third alternative.”
-
Continued…
“…for the sake of building and preserving a society that embodies the ethical values we hold sacred, we are required to do things that are not always nice and not always pretty. But we also know that we have to do these things in a manner that remains self-aware and self-critical.”
-
I celebrate speaking past one another and adventures in missing the point. As folks (and I’m a “folk”, lol) demonize, scapegoat, and speculate (in the blogosphere and out), I am thankful that we are attempting to speak to one another and I look forward to what this will become after lessons are all learned.
Does hope always consist of our own visions and projections? At the other end of things hoped, when we make it sometimes, sometimes I’m happier with what I got than with what I had hoped for.
Oh and in my opinion (looks like you are getting it with or without invitation), I knew the truth when I was younger, but not like I know it now. The truth that I know now probably won’t be what I know later. It is knowable, yet it sure is unsearchable.
This is just another perspective for consideration over here on the nuttier side of the coin
.-
Well said Amie. If there’s a purpose to dialogue and conversation it doesn’t need to go any further than vulnerably engaging others. But often what follows involves advancing agenda, deciding outcomes and collecting evidence to support judgments. Not that there’s anything wrong with this. In fact it’s the latter that I’m trying to teach my sixteen year old. But it’s the former I aim for in my own life.
-
Kevin,
I’ve come to call the argument to gain judgement the entrance into “moral court”. If we don’t chose it for ourselves, we can still engage those who do without entering it. I find it to be challenging. It reminds me of when my kids and I joke around:
Them: “?”
Me: “no”
Them: “yes”
Me: “no”
Them: “no”
Me: “yes…. DARNIT I meant ‘no’”!lol!
-
-
-
*when I make it sometimes
-
Kevin, I am not sure what you mean by:
“vulnerably engaging others.”
If you post an essay on a particular topic and assert x,y and z in the hope that others will comment…pro, con or undecided…those comments are bound to represent the opinion of the commentator. If the opinion is in opposition and the commentator provides a basis, all the better. Of course, the basis of info can be disputed for accuracy.
Disagreement is bound to occur and can be enlightening in itself.
Have a safe July 4th.
“As I flit through the blogging world I’m often disappointed in the real lack of conversation taking place.”
This is exactly the same issue I have, I can’t seem to find a community online which shares the same passion for inter-faith dialogue as I do.