Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Wish I’d said that. Tremendously important point, admirably stated; thanks, David.

"The other is rooted in an inability to recognize ambiguity as a fact of the world rather than as a failure of the intellect."

I'm trying to wrap my remaining cognitive function around that sentence. I wish you would expand it a little more. I get "arrogance" as "an inability to recognize ambiguity as a fact of the world" but I'm having trouble with the "rather than as a failure of the intellect" piece. What would it mean, I wonder, to arrogantly view ambiguity as a failure of the intellect?

I truly am confused David, and not trying to give you a hard time, so if you have a moment to revisit this sometime, I'll be grateful.

FP: It's not enough to be confident about what you know, it's more important to be aware and admit what you DON'T know. People seek out experts and leaders for certainty. This is perceived as being strong. In reality, what you really need to know is the level of confidence for any assertion.

Weatherman states that there is a 20% chance of rain today. Then he adds, "I'm never wrong." I'd bring the umbrella. BKMD

David,

With the greatest respect, your comment about George W.'s inability to recognize ambiguity is a candidate for the Irony Deficiency Syndrome hall of fame.

Isn't possible, just possible, that the issue is your lack of ambiguity? You are so certain on subjects that remain open questions to me after almost 2 years of research. I have no idea about the source of your certainty. It seems to me rooted in the fact that the wrong team is making the call. You are a Met's fan and the Yankees are at bat and you don't like it.

Paul

Bill, there's a "being" and "seeming" issue here for me. Are you, and by extension David saying that the President thinks that any ambiguity on his part would be interpreted as a lack of strong decisive leadership? Or are you saying that we --most of us-- actually would see an expression of ambiguity as a lack of strong decisive leadership (but that some minority of us would see ambiguity as a common condition of existence)? And then, leading out of either of these positions, do we think that the President is arrogant because of a role he plays while knowing full well what he does not know but assuming a posture of full knowledge (condition of seeming); or, is he arrogant because of a view he holds of the world, namely that he believes he must and can be decisive in all things parsing objectivity and clarity out of clouds of ambiguity (condition of being)? And if this latter condition obtains, could we call it a state of assumed intellectual superiority and therefore, in the case of GWB, delusional, as contrasted to the former condition of posturing and deceit?

Generally, I think that sorting on this would require more information about GWB the person than he and his handlers allow us. But if I am reading David's elegant assertion correctly in the light you have shed, it says to me that GWB is either a posturing prevaricator, arrogantly asserting his command of facts and situations in the certain knowledge of his own lack of data and control, or that he is delusional assuming that the clouds of ambiguity around him comprise trail dust from the cattle that magically appeared when he put on the big hat.

The alternative would be that we are wrong in intitial assumptions and that the President is actually an arrogant little fellow because he simply thinks he's morally superior.

Frank, yeah, that was pretty obtuse writing. I meant some things just are ambiguous. It's not because we don't know enough. There's not a clear edge or distinction to be known.

As for my own arrogance: I'd rather think of it as a bullheaded insistence on being wrong in public.

Well said...

Thanks David.

Ironic that bullheadedness can be marked as a bad trait ("arrogance") yet seems to be sometimes necessary to impel progress and keep so many conversations alive.

On the other hand, you achieve this by a gracious assertion of the bounded truth which is contrary to your self effacing description of bullheaded public wrongness.

Lacking a hat, I am more often bareheaded myself, which has served me well in the recent market conditions.

David, who else could come up with such a clever oxymoron ("ambiguity as a fact") in mid-July when most people are contemplating the merits of "grillin'" vs. "bar-be-que."

For all that matters, Dean is also guilty of seeking the "facts" when he re-evaluated his view on needle-exchange programs. Facts are the domain of intern, medical science practiced at his level of experience is an art. It's more important for a leader to display a highly-developed sense of tragedy than a batting average on facts. It's a side most people never saw in Rudy Giuliani until 9/11. No matter what you think of his politics, he came through for NYC on that occasion, when little information was available.

Maybe we can elect a computer President (not your computer, though), and deal with every issue on a machine-logic basis. I'm 66.6% confident of these assertions.

What a great thread. Youse guys are some excellent writers. Wow.

David,

The bullheaded insistannce on being wrong in public. Amen to that! The difference between you and I is that you have to insist, it just happens naturally to me. It's like weather that way.

After the social conservatives show their true fangs after the Lawrence SCOTUS decision, I am finally spitting up the ghost and distancing myself from the 'c' word. I am sketching out an essay with two possible titles, "Jane Jacobs is my Ayn Rand" or "We're All Hayekeans, Now".

Hayek doesn't need the PR and my 'book that changed my life' was Jacob's "Systems of Survival". "Being and Time" changed my life too but I cannot inflict reading it on people. I had two years at the knees of Binswanger's daugher to help me. My politics starts at the cross roads of Jacobs, Hayek and Heidegger. I am being-in-the-city-while-being-in-the-market.

Sorry, late night babbling. Good thing I gave up drinking.

Paul

Hi David, You made me think again about the accounts of the Resurrection, which shocked me this week when I realized that:

- The disciples were either to meet him in Galilee as he said and they did, or
- they were told to meet him in Galilee but he caught them by surprise in Jerusalem first so they met there and he instructed them not to leave, or
- he met them first in Jerusalem and then caught them by surprise back home at the Sea of Tiberias.

My conclusion was:
- Being with Christ involves a physical breaking down of time and space, of the fabric of this world.Different participants see the same events in a totally different frame of mind. One thinks he is on a mountain in Galilee, and another thinks he is in a locked room in Jerusalem. And perhaps one IS on a mountain in Galilee, and another IS in a locked room in Jerusalem. They know it is the same event, but they can't explain why they experience it completely differently.

So that would be, I think, ambiguity in the world.

I find it difficult to understand how people can sometimes be lead to believe that another is perfect just because that person believes they are.Also I was wondering how people can become arrogant,is it alot of attention???

If 'Arrogance' is the only way a humble person can finally tell the other/s who constantly exploit his/her humility to meet their selfish requirements, is it wrong? If this arrogance hurts the selfish people, what do you say to the (1) Arrogant person
(2) Selfish person