Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui  It applies entirely. The idea of polarity is an idea with a lifespan like any other. If some of my rambling was unclear, feel free to ask about it. |
It seems to me like you’re saying that people can’t have meaningful discussions about ideas if those ideas are allowed to mean whatever any particular participant in the conversation wants them to mean. I get that. Mutual agreement on the meaning of the subject in question would be essential to having a coherent dialogue. It makes sense if that’s what you’re saying. I suppose the “problem” that comes up for me when applying this to Steve’s polarity concept is that I don’t buy all of the premises that come with it. I see no reason to. It doesn’t seem to be a coherent philosophical system nor does appear to be an accurate snapshot of real world psychology. What’s in the polarization concept that can be “crystallized” other than yet another dogma, of the New Age variety rather than the traditional religious sort? Hence my pick and choose approach when it comes to this particular concept. Outside of conversation or debate, why should I or anyone else bother to “get it right” when as far as I can tell, there’s nothing there to be right or wrong about?