Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

do you mean that a conversation without disagreement is impossible ?

Yet as the saying goes, the more things we find different about ourselves, the more we realize how similar we really are. All of us have feelings and emotions that when we actually converse with one another and tell our stories, we realize we really do believe and want the same things. Of course, we'll never agree on how to achieve those things but there is nothing wrong with that. Diversity gives us the opportunity to look and try things from different viewpoints which will allow some of us to succeed while others may fail. The thing that people forget to realize though is that we are all in this together, yet we continually leave others behind who don't share in our success and advancements when later their diversity may actually help us advance when we can't see the way. Knowledge needs to be shared with everyone so that no one is left behind.

"And much of that conversation is precisely about what we can disagree about and still share a world."

Wow!

Well written.
"conversation is the eternal fate of humankind......in a shared world"

"Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them," said Epictetus. You are right. Views need to be expressed and conversations did help during his time and as you pointed SKYPE is aiding it today. And as to "much of that conversation is precisely about what we can disagree", I am sure there are a few around who do wonder...

The Web pushes us toward something else, in addition to tolerance: learning to think critically. If we are each exposed to a whirlwind of contradictory beliefs and claims about knowledge, we need to be able to evaluate, synthesize, and respond clearly to those claims. There is no longer a shortage of information or a shortage of shared believers in any particular knowledge. There *is* a scarcity of thinking skills, particularly among young people who are immersed in an education system that still privileges content knowledge over thought processes.

As active players, we all need to push ourselves and our correspondents, and especially our students, to ask critical questions about the information and knowledge they find on the Web. What does that mean, precisely? How do you know? Does the evidence offered support the belief asserted? Are other points of view or conflicting evidence overlooked? And so on.

BTW, a historical correction: tolerance and open-mindedness did not arise only after information began moving at the speed of light. They are 17th-century ideals (Milton's Areopagetica) that were embodied in 18th-century institutions (French and U.S. constitutions) long before the invention of any form of electronic communication. But it's a nice trope otherwise. :-)

Lately I've been thinking about "channels mixing".

Now that the internet enables us to subscribe to any channel, or use any channel, the only objective obstacle is languange.

Choosing channels that do not corespond to your ideas, valuse and feelings is a hard thing to do. You need a very strong motivation in order to do so.

When was the last time that you have read Little Green Football?

.

Conversation is not always easy, and I'm not only referring to disagreement about the subject being discussed.
Often enough, there is disagreement about what constitutes conversation. In Latin America I long ago lost count of the number of people I have offended -- including relations by marriage -- by the way in which I tend to discuss things. It's a tendency, I am told, that I unfortunately share with my fellow Americans.
Forget about disagreement -- an estadounidense simply talking things over is liable to do so in a manner that a latino might use to indicate that he's laying down the law, and isn't interested in anyone else's opinion.
Back in the United States, on a reservation where I worked, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was about to build some retirement homes. The contracting architects held a series of town meetings around the res to present their ideas and get feedback. When the community seemed on board, the homes were built, and immediately considered slums -- wrong end of town, wrong orientation, etc., etc. Why didn't someone say something when they had the opportunity? Many older Native Americans, especially, or those with little outside contact, find it presumptive to present differing points of view at the outset, and when they finally do so, they are liable to do it in ways the rest of us find so subtle as to be unnoticeable.
And as for American sublety? Hell, even the British, who the Latins think of as our identical twins, often find us too blunt. (Which I lay to us being such a diverse bunch -- when you have such a mix of immigrants, and children of immigrants, from all over the globe, we pretty well have to be plain-spoken, because we can't depend on the body language, inflection, or allusion that more settled communities can employ to convey meaning; but even foreigners who are aware of all that, at times find us hard to bear).

"Presumptuous," not "presumptive."

Gianluca, I meant that conversation is not possible without difference. That difference can, of course, be very positive.

Michael, thanks for the widening of scope. And I hope you're right about critical thinking.

Hanan, the only time I read Little Green Footballs is when I want to be a tourist in a place I don't like very much. I.e., rarely.

Johne, well put. As you say, conversation isn't (always) easy.

Despite some very visceral hostility to the whole metaphor of "conversation," I can't resist the opportunity to flog a "meme:"

"Dr. David Weinberger advances epistemology with Theory of Intelligent Conversation."

I couldn't think of a prevailing theory for you to dispute with Intelligent Conversation, so it's a little weak. Well, maybe a lot weak.

But, come to think of it, it does sort of bring to mind a significant component of "faith-based reasoning" in your writing.

Great post. I believe that we need to use collaboration technology that supports dialog to explore differences, not parallel soap boxes to proclaim our points of view, to get to this level.

See my post at http://q2learning.blogs.com/weblog/2005/12/joho_the_blog_k.html