Log in

No account? Create an account
Messenger Icon

Argument type mismatch

For my friends, I must apologize. Reflecting, I seem to make a fatal mistake almost every time I argue. I assume the other person thinks like me. Most people I am willing to argue with take the shortest path in logical argument, excising with skill and dexterity flaws in reasoning with Occam's Razor. I often opt for the long, complicated and drawn out method - where all evidence is forced into a state of flux and no conclusion is definite, and nothing may be straightforwardly interpreted.

The two methods are not level with each other, as each follows a fundamentally different philosophic path. Both are logical, too; my method merely utilizes fuzzy logic. Sigh, I suppose now is where people should go 'Oh boy, the kid's found another spiffy novelty and has grasped onto it to flaunt the new shiny term he has learned.' Honestly, it's not like that. Fundamentally, I think that way - years of training and doubt in all subject matters have taught me to hold everything I know in a state of flux. I have come across few concepts worth believing in absolutely - very few. Everything has a truth weight - not something between 0 and 1 - it's nothing digital - but instead more like how red the color purple is or how warm hot is and vise versa. It's (don't flinch) analogue.

When I weigh evidence, it has a conceptual value relative to the other things it is related. In order to come to a conclusion, I try to understand all the evidence, then ask 'what does it mean?' The answer is usually straight-forward; all the values are already overlapping, so it's like putting red on blue and asking what color is there. Purple. Simply obvious - if the viewpoint is properly calibrated. That's the hitch.

Dualistic logic provides straight-forward answers that are correct regardless of viewpoint. I find these answers to often lack meaning, 'quality' if you will (again, read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - it has not change my viewpoint much, but it added concrete layers to my understandings and vocabulary). I prefer to understand the underlying form of things, and thus I feel that dualistic logic cuts out valuable data that could be useful in drawing other conclusions. Thus a large data set is generally needed before any conclusions are possible, since the data is gleaned for meaning. The result is that connections are more easily made, and things are more readily see as analogous, since the mode of thought is largely analogue.

The downside is communicating, which is horribly destructive to the coherence. Where there was once a fine web of connections, similarities, and patterns connecting and demonstrating a concept - tying it down to absolutes to translate to another's acceptable format of communication forces the idea to be dissected and presented piecemeal linearly. Highly ineffectual and difficult to reconstruct to demonstrate the principle or concept I desire to present.

The result is that I seem to leap and weave, making as little sense as I can along the way until my presentation is done. Few have the time or patience for an exhaustive analysis on anything, and I lack the genius to simplify what I need to say to few words without excessive background. To me, my point will be obvious if I show the other what I know, since the conclusion is obvious. What I forget is that if presented with a photograph of a forest, the cardinal may not be in plain sight, no matter how red it is.

Thus I apologize for showing you all photo albums of leaves and twigs. There are other birds and animals - as well as lots of leaves, branches, and trees - but I hope that others can at least see the canary I'm pointing to once in a while.


Personally, I don't know a single person who can argue in a straight line.
I have the problem that people generally get bored during my arguments
monst of the time this is me
maybe if I learn to type well I will be able to put my thoughts down fast enough to not get bored. woo