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?

[rockytriton]

i thought all they had to do was reach out to the black and female voters.

[REASON]

I figured either Obama or Clinton would have to be a shoe-in for president considering the utter lack of beneficial CT used by the current administration. The only CT that has been used by the current administration has been in the management of the mountainous snowballs of deception they've created. ;)

 

I am interested in this Dialogic idea though. Maybe you'd be willing to elaborate a bit more about it. Is it something that some people who are good communicators may do naturally, or is it something that requires purpose or effort?

[coberst]

Reason

 

When we engage in a dialogue what happens? The first thing we find is that dialogue is unlike anything in which we have previously been involved. Group discussions generally digress quickly into verbal food fights and nothing positive is accomplished. Discussions become venues for shouting at one another. The most important thing discovered--provided you wished to advance your thinking so as to develop a means for solving intractable problems--is that skills and attitudes not presently possessed must be developed.

 

In a dialogue one discovers that advancement of the group toward solutions requires that each member be part of a coherent body wherein all agree to certain standards and procedures. It is necessary to form a solid foundation for the house under construction. The foundation must be solid and the structure true to a standard. In a house construction one sees carpenters using plumb-bobs and levels constantly. What are the plumb-bobs and levels of thought? What are the standards and principles of successful dialogue?

 

Each member of the dialogue discovers that things never thought of before are the first matters that must be resolved. The science of thought is the first and fundamental consideration that dawn on the participants. What are the fundaments of thought that must be examined?

 

The science of epistemology imposes itself immediately as a first consideration. Epistemology is the theory and craft of knowing. If the members of the group cannot agree on what knowledge is that group can go no further.

 

What can the group agree upon as to what is knowledge and what is truth? For all those who have never given such matters any thought this sounds a bit silly. Everyone knows what knowledge is and what truth is. That is a problem. Those never engaged in dialogue are likely to have ever questioned such basic concerns.

 

This whole matter of introducing the concept of dialogue faces the bootstrap problem. The bootstrap problem is one of accomplishing an end when the end to be accomplished is necessary for considering the end to be accomplished. Can the dog ever catch it’s tail?

 

Only after the group agrees on the nature of the plum bobs and levels of thought will the group be ready to move to the next step. The next barrier that it is likely to face is of the distinction between awareness and consciousness.

 

Before Americans can dialogue there must be preparation. That preparation is not furnished by our educational system. The only way that Americans can prepare themselves for dialogue is through a process of self-actualizing self-learning. It is here that we must begin our effort to dialogue.

[Thunderbird]

CT (Critical Thinking) and politics

 

 

 

 

 

“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?

 

 

Dialogic, good word, good post, here is another good word.

 

 

 

Praxis: Praxis is a complex activity by which individuals create culture and society, and become critically conscious human beings. Praxis comprises a cycle of action-reflection-action which is central to liberatory education. Characteristics of praxis include self-determination (as opposed to coercion), intentionality (as opposed to reaction), creativity (as opposed to homogeneity), and rationality (as opposed to chance).

[Thunderbird]

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/14122-teleological-view-cows-ice-cream-memory.html#post206823

 

 

I could use some of this here.;)

 

 

And they could use it here:B)

 

SEATTLE (AP) — A distasteful comment about Chelsea Clinton by an MSNBC anchor could imperil Hillary Rodham Clinton's participation in future presidential debates on the network, a Clinton spokesman said.

 

In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Friday excoriated MSNBC's David Shuster for suggesting the Clinton campaign had "pimped out" 27-year old Chelsea by having her place phone calls to Democratic Party superdelegates on her mother's behalf. Wolfson called the comment "beneath contempt" and disgusting.

 

"I, at this point, can't envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network," he added.

[coberst]

Thunderbird

 

Coincidentally I have been trying to understand that word "praxis" just in the last few weeks. I have been reading "Marx's Theory of Ideology" by Bhikhu Parekh

[terrygault]

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.

...

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”

...

Have you ever tried to dialogue dialogically?

 

coberst - I was brought here for the first time by your post above because of a Google alert with the search string: "Dialogue, Listening and Influence." This is the title of a body of work that we do at The Henderson Group (hendersongroup.com), where I work as the VP of Services.

 

I hope to participate here, share ideas and meaning, and make some new friends.

 

I wanted to comment on your query and suppositions:

1) I completely agree with your comment about the nature of the dialogical process with one slightly different perspective based on my experience.

2) Regarding: "Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other."

:lol:

Even if individuals wish to reason together in truth, they bring with them their prejudices and wishes to influence. Let's call them their "Mental Map" to paraphrase the term Mental Model referred to by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline, his seminal work on systems thinking.

(For more search: Peter Senge, Fifth Discipline, systems thinking.)

 

Essentially, it is impossible to come to dialogue as a pure vessel without prejudice and without an agenda. Our only hope to achieve dialogue is to acknowledge our prejudice and our agenda by committing to as great a level of transparency as we can. One example is to surface our assumptions and mental maps with statements such as, "I feel a strong need to influence you on this." or "My assumption is that Obama is the better candidate because he has broader appeal to independants." Can we definitively KNOW this to be true? No, of course not. Therefore, as imperfect vessels, we need to commit to Beginner's Mind, a willingness to examine our own assumptions and Mental Maps.

 

In any case, this is a fascinating dialogue. Happy to be part of it!:lol:

[Thunderbird]

CT

 

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.”[/b] Quotes from “Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life”

 

 

 

Just keep in mind, mankind’s enviable fate will not depend on any scientific or institutional intelligentsia that we can invent, but will succumb to the eventual Tao, or way, inherent within information itself.

 

:lol:

[coberst]

 

I wanted to comment on your query and suppositions:

1) I completely agree with your comment about the nature of the dialogical process with one slightly different perspective based on my experience.

2) Regarding: "Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other."

:hihi:

Even if individuals wish to reason together in truth, they bring with them their prejudices and wishes to influence. Let's call them their "Mental Map" to paraphrase the term Mental Model referred to by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline, his seminal work on systems thinking.

(For more search: Peter Senge, Fifth Discipline, systems thinking.)

 

Essentially, it is impossible to come to dialogue as a pure vessel without prejudice and without an agenda. Our only hope to achieve dialogue is to acknowledge our prejudice and our agenda by committing to as great a level of transparency as we can. One example is to surface our assumptions and mental maps with statements such as, "I feel a strong need to influence you on this." or "My assumption is that Obama is the better candidate because he has broader appeal to independants." Can we definitively KNOW this to be true? No, of course not. Therefore, as imperfect vessels, we need to commit to Beginner's Mind, a willingness to examine our own assumptions and Mental Maps.

 

In any case, this is a fascinating dialogue. Happy to be part of it!:)

 

Wecome aboard Terry.

 

I agree with every thing you say but wish to make one caveat. I just want to make one slight adjustment in my sentence to read as follows: "Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other."

 

I put emphasis on wish to point out that I am speaking of intention rather than performance. I agree that none of us can accomplish fully this wish but I think that we must have a strong intention to accomplish these feats even though no human can accomplish completely the wish.

[terrygault]

Wecome aboard Terry.

 

I agree with every thing you say but wish to make one caveat. I just want to make one slight adjustment in my sentence to read as follows: "Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other."

 

I put emphasis on wish to point out that I am speaking of intention rather than performance. I agree that none of us can accomplish fully this wish but I think that we must have a strong intention to accomplish these feats even though no human can accomplish completely the wish.

 

Coberst - Nicely parsed! You've captured my meaning precisely. Being aware of one's agenda, practicing transparency, and operating from Beginner's Mind are critical elements for Dialogue.

 

It's exciting to find people having substantive conversations about Dialogue online. Do you know the books, "Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together" by William Isaacs or "A Safe Place For Dangerous Truths" by Annette Simmons? Both are excellent books on Dialogue.

[coberst]

Coberst - Nicely parsed! You've captured my meaning precisely. Being aware of one's agenda, practicing transparency, and operating from Beginner's Mind are critical elements for Dialogue.

 

It's exciting to find people having substantive conversations about Dialogue online. Do you know the books, "Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together" by William Isaacs or "A Safe Place For Dangerous Truths" by Annette Simmons? Both are excellent books on Dialogue.

 

 

I am not familar with those books. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.

[Michaelangelica]

Please wake me up when the (total) election is over :)

 

We have a Head of State- Queen Elizabeth II of England

 

If you Yanks had been wise you could have kept her too, and quadrupled your magazine sales!

 

You have to poison her, to get rid of her.

[Thunderbird]

Wecome aboard Terry.

 

I agree with every thing you say but wish to make one caveat. I just want to make one slight adjustment in my sentence to read as follows: "Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other."

 

I put emphasis on wish to point out that I am speaking of intention rather than performance. I agree that none of us can accomplish fully this wish but I think that we must have a strong intention to accomplish these feats even though no human can accomplish completely the wish.

 

 

coberst

terrygault

 

 

Gentlemen you have an opportunity here to put these dialogic formulas to the test.

 

Consider picking out a thread that was particularly contentious and that has run its coarse. Continue the thread by exempting a reexamination of it from a purely dialogical view point.

 

Keep in mind this is a political hierarchal society, so you would might be criticizing some people with higher positions than others, this would be one point of the exercise.

 

I personally would find this very interesting by putting these ideas to the test in a practical way .

[terrygault]

Coberst - U R welcome. Enjoy the books.

 

coberst

terrygault

 

 

Gentlemen you have an opportunity here to put these dialogic formulas to the test.

 

Consider picking out a thread that was particularly contentious and that has run its coarse. Continue the thread by exempting a reexamination of it from a purely dialogical view point.

 

Keep in mind this is a political hierarchal society, so you would might be criticizing some people with higher positions than others, this would be one point of the exercise.

 

I personally would find this very interesting by putting these ideas to the test in a practical way .

 

Thunderbird - Interesting idea. Do you have a particularly contentious thread in mind?

[Thunderbird]

Coberst - U R welcome. Enjoy the books.

 

 

 

Thunderbird - Interesting idea. Do you have a particularly contentious thread in mind?

 

This is one.http://hypography.com/forums/introductions.html

 

 

Under; hello and a lingering question.

 

The direct link does not seemed to be working at this time.:phones: