How Did You Say?

[ink_ling]

Recently reading sunsmogseahorse's entries on religion -- as well as reading clarkelane's entries about the importance of artists' engaging with critical discourse -- have lead me to think a lot about the roles of religion/spirituality, science, art, and politics/ethics. More than that, they've reminded me to search a seam that unites these discourse/disciplines

Comments

[ink_ling]

OK: I am ready, though, for some non-cathartic sources of truth by now. :)

Maybe I'll post about this by the time this flap has cooled a little, but this discussion has made me look at the ways that I communicate when I am trying to have an intellectual discussion. I am noticing that I tend to use what I deem an "objective" tone while almost always emphasizing specific differences in the way I see things and the way the person I am speaking to sees things. I do this -- at root -- because I am actually turned on by little differences in folks' thoughts. But, it's pointed out to me -- in a lot of contexts -- lately that I rarely take the time to express the excitement I feel over some of those differences and that I even more rarely reach to find commonalities.

I've been told this penchant makes me appear to at least be exhorting others to take my view, if not judging them implicitly for believing differently -- even when our intellectual projects share the same goal. I always imagine I am just offering another thought-through and personally preferable option. But, I've been told that's not how I come across.

I also know that -- on LJ -- I often write and respond at work, very quickly, often in ways that are unintentionally unclear or supported. Sometimes, my use of LJ resembles chat. With serious and important discussions like the issue of fundamentalism, I am now wanting to take more time with what I say. I think I have to, as a person who really values and enjoys serious intellectual exchange and so much wants to believe it's possible outside of academic contexts.

And I am not offering my own self-analysis and hopeful re-direction as some kind of Jesus-like example here. :) I am only -- as I've said -- trying to show where my thinking on this is going and offer my reasons for a hopeful change in approach.

I suddenly and temporarily want to be old-style hippie about this: Let's have a cathartic fuck to season our cathartic anger. Hehehe. (I'm verily messily mixing some metaphors and references here, just in mind of a conjugational visitation.)

[sunsmogseahorse]

I try to do that myself. If someone makes the effort to tell me what they think I can at least acknowledge it and tell them where we concur.

It seems to me though that there could be a bit more resilience around disagreement. I want vigorous debate, not everyone making soft, cooing sounds to each other. It's not that I'm advocating hostility but what's wrong with a well-indended tussle?