"talking past each other"

generally, in various arguments, the different sides have rhetoric which each vehemently believe in. the individuals involved have their own explanation for why their rhetoric is more righteous/logical/beneficial/etc., but that does not change it from being rhetoric.

this attitude is symptomatic of the discourse occurring in some "parts" of the mena region. there is very little reciprocation and very little true dialogue (and i'm not just referring to our famed "hiwar"). instead, we are busy "talking past each other", each assuming that he is right and the other wrong.

such practice sadly leads to self-fulfilling prophecies. all the conclusions that each had arrived at will eventually come true, thus making each more confident of his/her analysis, and making each more militant in his/her beliefs. the saddest element of such intellectual affairs is that none of us realize what is happening until it is too late. at which point, we lament the entire situation, and go ahead and blame the other, when in fact we share a large proportion of the blame because we took the road always taken.

words will spew back and forth, soaking everything but our minds. ideas will be torn apart by each side, but each side tears apart these ideas by using a different set of initial assumptions. such arguing will never work until the "other" agrees with the assumptions you use, or if you use his/her assumptions to persuade him/her. if this does not occur, then the topic at hand will perpetually persist being a topic of polemic.

although such continued controversy might entertain some, it is extremely unproductive. in the words of inspector finch from V for Vendetta (no, this is not a spoiler, and for the quote to make sense, just replace sutler and V with any two names/leaders you want):

"With so much chaos, somebody will do something stupid. And then things will turn nasty. And then, Sutler will be forced to do the only thing he knows how to do. At which point, all V needs to do is keep his word."

so what can we do? will rehashing logic based on different sets of assumptions eventually persuade the other? probably not. is there a different approach to arguing that might persuade the other? yes. let's try that for a change. it might work wonders.

posted by Lazarus, 8:17 AM