Forum Post: Issues with progress thru dialog...
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 29, 2011, 2:04 p.m. EST by Listof40
(233)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We may want progress the Occupy movement by discussuing things, and this is actually a good strategy... However, there are some fundamental difficulties in making sure progress is effective when discussing things. The number one issue is that essentially individuals in society are not on the same page when considering what is reasonable. It is unfortunately very improbable that fundamental progress can occur without fundamental understanding and consensus regarding reason itself, between those involved in problem solving. This is the fundamental cause of difficulties in discussions and resolving problems in society. The problems of society, and what Occupy tries to address, are actually not that difficult to resolve in themselves, it is our reasoning process that obstructs and undermines this progress that is the real problem. This difficulty in reasoning has been going on for thousands of years. In actuality, why these problems continually resurface, is because fundamentally constructive reasoning has actually rarely ever occured. Period.
This is why movements like the 60s collapsed, internal common reasoning problems that are unlikely to be able to sustain constructive progress. It wasn't that their intentions were too weak or not admirable, or their resolve too weak, it is that there are common types of reasoning issues that are systemic that are rarely understood, and unfortunately will most likely cause extensive unnecessary difficulty.
Now this may seem somewhat vague or non-specific, but this post is actually engaging in dialog that is at a root level of discussion, that does not occur very often.
Problem #1: Since most people 'imply' that they are reasonable regardless of actual quality of that content, evaluating dialog becomes a sea of statements, and the criteria for evaluating or changing this is also across-the-board disagreed upon, therefore giving the fundamental constructivity score of modern dialog somewhere between 1-6% on a scale of 100. This is not sustainable for fundamental constructive progress. Period.
I am introducing this because it is of core relevance. How this can be changed is directly proportionate to how we engage these types of root discussions, because this is actually the core problem and reason success is rarely achieved in fundamental societal issues and concerns.
I hope we can engage issues at this level, in order to progress... I would be glad to address any questions regarding this perspective... Dave
Dave The problems of society, and what Occupy tries to address, are actually not that difficult to resolve in themselves,
A few are MAJOR issues. War, campaign finance, the federal reserve.
Dave This is why movements like the 60s collapsed, internal common reasoning problems that are unlikely to be able to sustain constructive progress. It wasn't that their intentions were too weak or not admirable, or their resolve too weak,
Drugs sidetracked the 60's. Later shown to be moved by the CIA. There was a problem contained with the "internal common reasoning" exactly as you suggest. That problem was based in the separation from the hierarchy of values that expresses itself socially in the establishments of absolutes that all must observe to be competent. Media and drugs mostly prevented the basic language from expressing those absolutes in tangible ways. So the needed, properly based unity never happened, or even voiced its basis.
I agree, it is a root conceptual problem with trying to discuss the needed group action and we, as individuals, on the average, have very little patience for developing the skill. Accordingly, a few obsessed with such obscure things will post in regard, trying to resolve the next method for revealing the needed moves.
There is a thing called "Non Violent Communication" NVC, that uses a precept of addressing needs first and overtly to assure people that the information and effort are going to benefit them.
Good thread!
Hi.. this is good insight into some of this, i do not know much specifically historically with previous movements other than that they influence much of our current culture and are very important, of course...
Part of the issue with fundamentals like we are trying to bring up in this discussion, is that they can be tricky to approach, so to speak, but i am going to try to go into this a bit further...
There are two main modes of reasoning, so to speak, 'reasoning by intent' and 'reasoning by reason'. This may sound exessively obvious... however, what this means is that when reasoning by intent, the language can become inaccurate in almost a cultural and not perceived manner, and this serves the social structure as the language is modeled and implemented in various established modes of interaction, etc. We tend to adapt to this type of language, although technically it can be actually a somewhat tramatic process initially to adapt to an 'intent based reasoning' culture and way of dialogue...
So the way we can look at this, and see how this affects things, is to look at how language works at a fundamental level, regarding certain key aspects...
Essentially, most statements are what is called a 'positive assertion' which is actually a 'truth claim'.
Let's look at the following statements.
"There are two bookstores on Forest Street." "It is true that, there are two bookstores on Forest Street."
All positive assertions can be preceded by "It is true, that" because this is its natural function in the first place. Positive assertions are truth claims, and actually are technically absolute claims. We often do not like to admit to this so we create a cultural dialog that is intended for us to not take responsibility for this, like relativism, certain forms of skepticism, etc which are flawed internally in structure.
This affects discussions at all levels because the dialog is being manipulated culturally.
Now i'm not sure if this seems to make sense how this relates, but that is one of the issues with this level of analysis. Technically, this is philosophy, but a special type of philosophy that is actually quite rare...
I will try to continue and explain more how this relates to discussions, but there is some difficulty in describing this in small posts... but i do not want to post long lengthy text either... so hopefully this discussion can continue and somehow be helpful...
Dave
I see what you are getting at. In some ways the inspiration of an empathetic discourse seems to be a goal. Where understanding is primary, maybe that would fit the 'reasoning by reason'. I know I've done this in discussion to see how the other person agrees, the dynamics of it, breadth, implication etc.
But can we do a check on a terms? "Culture", I know what you mean when you use it, but in someways the misuse could be near the root of the confusion. Culture comes from our European roots which means to cultivate. Our ancestors learned it was easier to work together to grow food. Since we worked together, we ate together and talked about the work for awhile then, we got social.
Social runs largly on imagery. This way everyone recognizes the intents. Ritual and ceremony have these attributes.
If I were to define 'reasoning by intent' I would say that there is a want or need involved and the intent is to see it met.
I Mentioned NVC. If I begin by saying I recognize your needs, your fear is reduced. When I brought needs, I brought culture. Now, we agree on some primary fundaments. I mean so basic that everyone literally takes them for granted. We both know that the other has an absolute intent to see those needs met, and we've empathized mutually with our shared awareness of how important these needs are.
You and I are unified.
More functionally. We agree on these needs and reach out to find many others do to. We find that there is a historical structure, a social contract to enable structures that meet needs and the thing is basically not only accepted, its loved. We find it is called the U.S. Constitution. As more people make this obvious recognition, we find we are making cultural society because we are seeing the need for the social contract and acting to enforce it or protect our ability to see the needs met.
Does that help?
Yes, this is a very good description of how we have developed social structures and modes of interaction in certain ways, and that how we perceive and maintain these roles determine how they function in society.
There are very good aspects and key benefits from organizing, and building community to benefit each other in society, of course, this is very healthy. But there are also problems if we not aware of certain dificulties, and if those difficulties become institutionalized, socially and politically...
How we use language directly effects the process when addressing problems that develop in society... and whether we are successful... It is very important...
I have had kind of a long day, at work... but i am thinking about some specific elements that affect progress, and will try to post more info on this...
I really like your description and breakdown of how social interaction works culturally, in terms of these two modes of reasoning...
Dave
Yea, long week at work for me.
Listof40
But there are also problems if we not aware of certain dificulties, and if those difficulties become institutionalized, socially and politically...
Very well put. I'll try to remember that because it is directly addressing the problems we are working to stop in system terms.
Hey, yes it was a long week....
Btw, i posted kind of a 'part 2' continuing this thread... http://occupywallst.org/forum/progress-thru-discussion/
I meant to update here to the new post... I hope this makes sense how it picks up from this post...
I also realized I didn't clariffy about the use of the term culture...
I guess I kind of look at culture as ideas or mindsets that have become socially or politically common or integrated into areas of society, but also the social aspects on small scales that have momentum and can influence our individual interactions as well...
Dave
Since I started seeing culture as something strictly needs based, and after culture comes society. Logical groupings that focus on the immediate needs, which ultimatly create independence, can form when there is focus on needs.
Current society, where needs actually are only known in terms translated by corporate products, looses touch. People actually become unstable, particularly families. When children do not learn about meeting their needs, there is insecurity. It might not be overtly known, but it's there and the social groups formed later in life are emotionally clinging to their interactions learned as children, because there most often is no culture to grow into.
When the stage of parenting begins, it really unravels because the children go to schools where those groups begin to form around the knowledge taught which serves the corporations needs for a compliant workforce. The parents depend more and more on the society of television which abandons the dialog of needs wand of course there is television for young children, teens, and adults, which effective separate them and the family dialog on culture that normally passes between age groups in families.
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying here, which is a good description...
There are areas that are important for us in families and society in general, for example, to be autonomous, feelings of belonging and being involved, to be appreciated or our well-being or ideas being valued...
If there are problems in these areas, it can affect the relationships and trust dynamics between people... i see where you are going with this in terms of how culture can develop in these areas, and expand out...
There are some other aspects that i wanted to go into as well about some areas of language and how this affects discussions... this may seem a little unusual to approach in this way... but i wanted to provide some addtional background for other ideas... let me know what u think...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/progress-thru-discussion-p3/
Dave
Ok, I want to mention a couple of aspects that are important, but these are somewhat tricky and the intentions of looking at things this way may be often misperceived...
So the first thing we can look is the idea of understanding itself... Unfortunately, there can be issues with how we view what this is, and so i will approach this by referring to what i call the 2 forms of knowledge - 'primary knowledge' and 'secondary knowledge'...
Primary knowledge is to have some information or fact - but with proof. This is considered to be Understanding... One cannot have understanding regarding any particular consideration without knowing 'why' it's true.
Secondary knowledge is to have some information or fact, but without individual confirmation that it is actually correct.
"I don't know what is the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding; they learn by some other way - by rote or something. Their knowledge is so fragile." R. Feynman (from "Surely you must be joking Mr. Feynman")
Another aspect related to this which is often misunderstood is regarding what objectivity is, and this can be particularly problematic in discussions.
Objectivity is to not assert (or accept) as true - or dismiss as false, without clear individual confirmation regarding the status of any particular consideration (ie. proof).
There may some apects of society culturally that may not like us looking into reasoning at this level, but I hope this is somewhat helpful, and i wanted to try to clarify a few points in general...
Dave
How this relates can be seen by the following statement:
"It is impossible to justify an inappropriate action or conclusion, without using false reasoning (ie incorrect logic)."
And this means that when there is a bad policy or an inappropriate position or action, these can actually be clearly identified where there are technical errors in the reasoning. There are a few working principles that help with this, which i will try to get to.
Why this is important is that we cannot get around the fact that logical reasoning structures drive and determine, directly, what the political conditions are, how things are resolved, and how we move forward as a movement or society. The fact that the fundamental aspects and how reason plays into the social and political process is rarely examined clearly, which misdirects how it is possible to directly resolve these concerns.
The entire legal and political system is nothing but logical structures. Period. There is no other reality.
When we discuss things, these are all reasoning and without clear understanding of how the fundamentals affect the discussions, the process of progress breaks down.
It is actually important to not just only advocate what we 'want', but to be able to clearly understand the fundamental aspects, to affirm and provide foundation for what is important so we can be on the same page. Some may think this is not possible, but it is a fundamental aspect of reasoning itself for this to be available for us.
Let look at the following statement:
"Good sir, you are an Athenian, a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honours as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" Socrates (Apology)
This was at least 2400 years ago, and in one of the first democracies. This was a part of Socrates' address before was sentenced to death by majority vote, i might add.
The power structure did not like that he was teaching people, publicly and for free, how to reason specifically and effectively, to defend themselves from questionable rhetoric.
I wish i could tell you that the kinds of principles that Socrates shows he probably had a very clear understanding of, were continued to build upon naturally and constructively and developed further after he was executed, but that is frankly just not the case. Most of the spirit of what he was attempting to do, unfortunately dissolved very quickly, and really has not been available with a much momentum or degree.
I also want to mention an aspect here for clarity, that is thought that the Athenians translation and meaning for the term 'soul' is actually a mix of character and disposition (ie. 'spirit' with exphasis on character).
I will try to follow up a little more on how this ties together, and the specific implications of this type of approach when trying to progress things...
I think the Liberal community might function with more efficiency in the influence of national politics, if we would think of our community as an environment - modeled after the natural environment - where we as activists are attempting to create memes, which enter an environment of other memes that are in competition with each other. And out of this competition of memes, ever more appropriate, adapted, and suitable ideas can gather and link themselves together into higher and higher "organisms."
Paraphrasing Terrence McKenna
Interesting, I guess we could think about things this way...
Like could be a way of paraphrasing putting ideas together... I guess the trick is how we can come together on the methods for doing this...
Dave-here's something you should look at. http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/a/kmap/mess/tocMessMaps.html
I've been researching a theory often called "wicked problem" or "social mess"-(note-the word wicked here does not mean evil in a religious sense, but wicked in a "huge, complex, astonishing" way) The above link will explain it, and demonstrate that how we "think about" and resolve social problems has to change. We cannot think about them the way we do "tame problems" because they have so many different AND interwoven issues that often it's impossible to address one without affecting (and/or harming) another unintentionally.
The theorists show that in order to truly solve such social dilemmas, we need to produce "mess maps"-that clearly show as many details and interrelationship problems as possible to ALL participants in the discussion. This helps explain the complexity of the issue AND saves time and endless repetition.
If we DON'T do something like this as a country, and map it out until we can clearly see what the problems ARE, I fear we will never be able to come up with a long term solution to our problems.
In the end, though, isn't it the ability of people to have empathy for others, to "walk in the shoes" of another person, that is really at the root of communication that leads to progress. If people can only understand their own experience and what is good for them, how can they see what is good for society and the "other" who is unknown to them? Seems like these mess maps might be one way to overcome people's inability to be empathic. Interesting.
Exactly! I would suggest it's impossible to truly BE empathetic about something you don't even know exists...much less communicate about that thing.
There's a saying that goes " Q.What is the difference between empathy and apathy? A. I don't know and I don't care."
[Deleted]
Thank you SO much for entertaining the information I linked to AND how it is affecting our social issues.!
I really like this and the info it points to with the Mess Maps... I think this is good by bringing up several important points,, because it breaks down the many influences on a situation and the problems when trying to resolve it...
This somewhat related to what i call a 'micro-dynamic'...
Essentially, a micro-dynamic is where the situational elements make it very difficult for individuals to do the right thing under a particular circumstance...
I will try to describe this using a simplified analogy...
So let's say that you and your friend go into a castle and this ruler guy cages you, chains you both up and tells you, "If you pull this lever, then this spike comes down and your friend dies, but if you don't pull it, then it comes down on you and you will die." Which one of the two actions for you is the 'best' or 'right' one? Neither of them, both choices are both actually equally technically ethically problematic, but you do not have a choice (in this theoretical example) because the micro-dynamic (controlled by the castle ruler) has rigged the circumstances so that you are not able to choose a good course of action.
So essentially, it is important to change the micro-dynamic itself before dire situations occur.
So another illustration is let's say you are in nazi germany, ok, so now try helping a jew from the horrible things that were happening to them ...the paper published those who tried to help jews, and everynight at a certain time they lined all of them up and was heard the sound of gunshots as they executed them. That is an illustration of the problems with a micro-dynamic, it makes it very difficult to do the right thing... The problem is that when a micro-dynamic gets to this level, it becomes extremely problematic when trying to improve the situation at an individual level, that is why we should try to change micro-dynamics as soon as we can...
Essentally, we are in a very large micro-dynamic cultural and globally...
So to relate this to your model of the health system in oregon. The lapse in care for those in the system, can occur from budget allotment, policy changes, etc and so the direct providers of the care have problems.
Let's say a nurse 'sneaks' in a patient to help them, then she is risking her career to do so, and this is not fair to her either, so the 'system' puts difficulty constrains on her abliilty to do the right thing... and so disadvantages trying to help some of those in need that fall out of the rules. The budget director adjusts policy based on a congressional policy, and then other political mechanisms higher up, etc, mis-direction of funds, etc...
What is really happening is actually how rationalization structures are influencing the decisions of those who are influencing policy. However, what determines this is the culture actually... if we as individuals are playing fast and loose with our justifications then we can be exploited, because this makes us vulnerable, by those who will use the same justifiications against us...
A good example of the complexities of pressures and dynamics constraining individuals from trying to do the right thing is the movie Margin Call about a wall street firm the day up to the crash.. it is really well done and acted, you should also check this out...
Hope these examples makes some sense, and i really like your post... Dave
First thing is consideration for others' point of view ,"respectfully as Generals talking on the battle field " , so as not to melt down the computer !
"Friendly talk gets everything " !
Beware of the covert intentions ! ie..
Our Governments N.D.A.A. Bill.
Of course you're right... It is important for us to be friendly and courteous when discussing things...and I genuinely didnt not mean to seem a bit too direct in my response to ithink's comment...
However, there is a concern with how discussions devolve and this has been the case throughout history...
But regardless, you are right...it is important for us to not be in opposition to each other in spirit, and I hope my response does not seem that way... I think ithink's comment is interesting and i will think about it some more as well, I do feel we should be try to help the situation and the movement forward though as well...
There is another aspect about how we discuss that I did want to mention in my next comment I mentioned I was going to work on...
Trying to move forward constructively is tricky, but a big part if it is how we relate to each other, and the spirit of helping each other and not be oppositional... So I will try to approach this in my next reply... Thanks for helping and bring up this point, because it is important for us to be friendly and work together...
I think the problem is the desire to progress. This desire will ultimately become an obstacle to achieving the progression that is desired. A group cannot evolve itself anymore than an individual can enlighten itself. So it happens according to natural forces and laws. Not as a result of rigged determination and policy.
Well, you do realize that that is just a theory, right?
It would be unfortunate if you thought that somehow your position transcended the requirement for real foundation, because it doesn't. Anybody can conjecture about anything...the idea that because someone can dismiss something using a questionable argument or theory, that this means that it is somehow automatically correct over the other one, is error. Period.
So let look at what you are saying, you are saying that we cannot use critical thinking to solve the problems that occur, we just have to sit and wait for this to 'evolve' away with out acting to progress with a clear strategy and exert effort to fix the issues?
If a car is coming toward you, you think that you can't actively use your critical thinking to understand the circumstance, and exert effort to avoid a situation from occurring, but just have to 'wait' for something to naturally 'evolve', instead of actively addressing the situation? That of course is a very weak assumption...
Any problem situation is a matter of 1. Identifying if a problem condition exists. 2. Evaluating the aspects of that condition to understand it. 3. Reasning effectively to address, and exert effort to resolve the situation.
This is not rocket science and is done almost continuously by all of us in innumerable ways. There are no subjects that cannot be evaluated with effective reasoning. Period.
To say that you can't use good reasoning when evaluating certain subjects or a societal problem is a very superficial analysis of how reasoning works, any particular object of evaluation cannot be claimed to just 'not apply'.
I know what zen is.... it doesn't absolve us from not knowing what we are talking about when analyzing things, or if having insufficient understanding, I promise...
Your post may have been well intention, but the idea that constructive cooperative progress can just be waved away with a stylized postured vague naysay, and that this is somehow constructive or 'profound' has very little merit, in the end...
I am not suggesting we should not use critical thinking to solve problems or that we should abandon our desire to improve our surroundings, interactions, culture, government, world or our selves. It seems to me, that "Progress" is not a problem, therefore, there is no solution. I am merely suggesting that purposely trying to "evolve" ourselves, eh, is not likely to yield the desired result.
hi ithink, btw i did not intend to minimize the aspects of what you were saying in the last post, so i appologize if it seemed to come out that way...
There is a very good point in what you are saying with this, but could be a little difficult to describe...
This is the idea that is it difficult for us as individuals to transcend our own level of understanding, or own 'bubble' so to speak, as you imply...however, this is where discussion can help, in ways that would be difficult to do just as individuals...
I think in science they often call the principle of 'emergent' properties, something like the whole is greater that the some of the parts, etc...
So my take on this, is there are some aspects of society that block progress because of confusions that are mostly cultural, and perpetuated because of some problematic issues, and that these influences are not minor but extensive and active on a very broad scales...
This may sound vague, and i am still going to post some more specifics, but essentially these are mirrored on almost levels, particularly both the individual level, and in the larger society influences...
But you are right, it is difficult to grow and be objective on an individual level, but that is why it is helps to 'spark' with other ideas and help each other in this areas, and maybe we can emerge to something bigger... we do not want to miss fundamentals that are important to this as well...
There are some principles that we could look at to hopefully help with this, too... I will try to get around to posting some more ideas on this... Dave
Hi Dave, hmm so there may be some emergent properties at the social level. I never really thought of it that way.. I agree that together and with discussion we can build something greater than we can individually. I look forward to hearing more ideas on this and also why you think some aspects of society block progress through confusion.
It's from birth !
It's from birth !
Greed , ( desire )is the part of survival that allows the seed to survive ; thus it's not a crime !!!
To take all from others whereas the greedy have all , and others have nothing is an anti HUMAN concept , let alone just not good for Humanity , so we have to teach ourselves how to live around each other or @ !
This IS what we call a result of rigged determination and policy.
We build complex mental structures, hierarchies and policies so that we can live around each other. Then we teach our children to obey the laws and rules. Yes, all of this is a result of rigged determination and policy. But, to progress the vision of OWS- wouldn't man itself have to evolve beyond the need for such structures, hierarchies and policies?
I agree with some aspects of what you are saying...
Desire is natural, desire for affection as well.... belonging, things, shiny things, nice clothes, nice cars.. this is natural... why? Because those things provide to us what is useful based on how we evaluate what these return to us as individuals.
However, as you mentioned, cruelty and anti-emplathy, anti-cooperation, anti-social dsyfunction that can be used, by some, to achieve these things is not natural or healthy, ultimately, that's why it is dsyfunctional... (not internally functional, a breakdown in healthy function).
So we want to try to understand how our interactions break down, because this is relationships that breakdown between people when we cannot value each other, and instead exploit each other, there are 'rationalization' structures that have often been introduced, devolped, and recycled culturally that are a big factor in how people are trained and taught to view and engage with members of society, and each other...
Hope this makes sense, but i think i understand some of aspects you are alluding to in the post, which i think are good points...
"Dave's not here". I couldn't help it, since communication is being used as a tool to prevent progress. Perhaps you'd like to diagram the issues and their subordinate topics Dave.
Impressed that this post was seen again... I had posted at the end of lunch a few days ago and with many other posts at the time it seemed to move down pretty quickly...thanks for bringing the post back up list a little more.... so I will try to explain some of these points a bit further...
Although this subject of the role dialog plays may seem maybe a bit dry maybe, but it is also important...
Let me approach this by looking at some ideas and steps for how it would be possible for a successful dialog to develop into successful momentum for a movement like OWS. The trouble is that along the way there are difficulties that i call 'primary obstructions' that usually block forward progress, and so unless these are addressed these will probably undermine things rather quickly, so I will be also talking about this types of things too.
So let say we have started a strong effort and movement to move forward, like OWS has, we can see a couple steps to this:
Ok, that has been done to a large degree, so that is a big step.
As soon as an idea of working objectives or leadership comes in, there is probably some breakdown in the discussion because some may be concerned about the movement moving away from it's core purpose. This is a legitimate concern. So how do we get over this problem of clear enough focus to be constructive, (even a possible leadership aspect), even when there can differring views on this, or even many being unsure how to achieve a clear working focus.
To be able to get past this, somehow effective and constructive ways to reason about this is probably the most important thing, and if we honestly look at the history of society, we can see that that is this is rarely found or achieved at a very reliable level, even when well-intended. That's a problem, and its definitely not a trivial problem, it is core...actually the reasoning aspects are most directly relevant issue affecting progress overall, and for a progressive movement.
The trouble is, ideas about reasoning itself can be all over the map, and there are people who believe that clear constructive accessible reasoning is not 'universally' (or however they paint this,etc) possible. That is unfortunate. Not only is it possible, it is a fundamental aspect of the nature of reasoning itself.
So my post has gone quite long... not sure if how I am approaching this seems to make sense so far... but I will try to follow up some more specifics to hopefully help a bit more with this...
Dave
[Removed]
I guess we can give everyone a "labadomy" and make "robots" out of them so they don't have to think for themselves.
Wake up - society has always been like this - geez - what rock do you live under?
Not sure what you are trying to say here exactly...
Are you saying that we shouldn't improve society or how we discuss things, because of problems society has had the past?
The meaning here is to think constructively instead of not looking objectively at things... When we don't examine our assumptions and biases, we can und up spinning in circles, so it is important that we are able to look at and examine how we discuss things...
It is very easy to miss the point of what each other is saying, we should try to avoid this because otherwise it does not improve the the discussion, even if implying that is our intention...
Not sure why you would attempt to characterize discussion as robotic... Examining things constructively, instead of clinging to assumptions or insufficiently examined beliefs, and instead of acting out of unquestioned conformity, is what thinking for oneself actually is...
People think how they want - they have their own opinions and the impose their own opinions. That's the make up of our society.
We can also choose to improve ourselves and to examine ideas...
One of benefits of reasoning itself, is that we don't have to just inflexibly cling to positions or beliefs, even when this may have been imposed on us by those who had direct control over our education, or even if by threat or intimidation....
We can choose to come together in the spirit of helping each other, and try to improve our society, and even to step ourself of our own assumptions about things, because it is just a choice... And because we can socially organize and discuss for the benefit of each other, this is open to us...
I think your points may be well-intentioned, but discussion itself also opens up the possibility that we can learn about each other, and ourselves, and problem solve ideas, and try to look at how we see things, to improve society and how we relate to each other...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/
Here's more information about what I was talking about earlier- http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/