From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 17:49:31 MST
Nathanael Allison writes:
(Aside: Welcome back Nate! )
> Is it neccesary for two people with opposing views to
> become enemies in order to resolve the subject with which
> they oppose?
No it is not necessary. People can learn. Peoples views can change
and most opposing views are not matters of life or death or even
friendship breakers. Some people actually enjoy learnng what the
world looks like from other peoples standpoints. Some find it
a challenge to reconcile apparent opposites.
> Does the creation of enemies lead to futher competition and
> therefore increase progress?
Well it is difficult to cooperate with one's enemies. But progress
doesn't always require competiton. Cooperation in many cases is
actually better.
> Or does the creation of enemies
> cause more irrational thought and thereby decrease progress?
Enmity is likely to be a pretty emotive state. Very strong emotions
can often cloud judgements. Clouded judgements might lead on
to more irrational decision making.
> What would be the best relationship for resolving
> opposing opinions?
Depends.
>
> What systems offer an intermediate relationship so that
> people are impelled (compelled?) to challenge each other yet
> has check points so that people do not become overly irrational?
Disputes between people can be mediated in a variety of means
but a prerequisite for mediation (by a third party) would seem to
be that both parties (people) have some confidence in the third
party.
> I would say that this email list is one such system.
Thats interesting. Why do you think that?
>In the real world though, what systems are setup?
Can you ask a more specific question?
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 17:31:55 MST