CT (Critical Thinking) and politics

[coberst]

CT (Critical Thinking) and politics

All of us who are interested in politics have a ring-side seat for viewing the CT skills of Obama and Hillary.

How well these two candidates perform one of the most important aspects of CT in the next several months will determine, to a large extent, which party will occupy the White House for the next four years. These two candidates face a daunting task; they must control their race for the White House in such a manner that it will not severely harm the winner’s opportunity to win the 2008 election.

Their struggle for supremacy between now and the convention could very well do significant harm to their party’s chance to win the WH. While they fight against one another John McCann can sit back and prepare for the finals; they must somehow not only compete with one another in a grueling fight but they must do it in a way that will not seem unseemly to the American people who will be carefully watching.

The daunting task these two must navigate in the next few months is to work together in dialogue so as to allow each to fight fiercely in the race while not doing harm to their party in the process. They must be expert at the task of dialogic.

Dialogue combined with dialectical reasoning is equal to dialogic.

In dialogue, person ‘A’ may state a thesis; in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common, ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.” Quotes from “Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life”


“On Dialogue” was written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London”.

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue dialogically we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

Have you ever tried to dialogue dialogically?

[coberst]

Our culture is structured on competition.

We debate rather than dialogue. Winning is number one and reasoning together is for the “girly man”. Training youngsters to be good soldiers is more important than educating them to become Critical Thinking citizens. In fact our concept of reasoning seldom examines the aspect of consciously seeking harmony. Speaking of harmony, we rap or roll rather than snuggle in poetic symphony.

I suspect the competitive mode of being is very important for our survival. However, I think that this competitive mode will make it difficult for our civilization to survive another two hundred years.

When we couple this strong competitive mode with a strong technological expertise and a weak communicative rationality we are flirting with Armageddon.

Obama and Clinton will dialogue together in search of a means to continue their struggle without destroying the winner’s opportunity to win the finals against McCann.

[Jaiysun4]

Originally Posted by coberst

Our culture is structured on competition.

I suspect the competitive mode of being is very important for our survival. However, I think that this competitive mode will make it difficult for our civilization to survive another two hundred years.

When we couple this strong competitive mode with a strong technological expertise and a weak communicative rationality we are flirting with Armageddon.

Damn right it is!!!

Marx, anyone...