Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Dewey
Contributor
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 522
Location: California
|
Post: #16  Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:37 am Post subject: |
  |
|
|
Maybe this will help, folks.
By "moderation" I mean the act of moderating; that is, mediating between choices. The choices might ALL be large or all small, all important or all important, all radical or all conservative, all moderate or immoderate (the other meaning), or even all good or all evil. My "moderation" is strictly relative..
(I probably confused everybody more!)
_________________
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end. "
-Immanuel Kant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1671
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #17 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Dewey,
Would you accept my phrasing of your statement as follows:
Is Objective, Skeptical Subjugation and Subsequent Analysis of All of Our Beliefs Necessary?
If this is what you mean, then of course you are right. And if we are honestly being objective and skeptically analyzing everything we believe in on a continuous basis, of course we will eventually compromise. Just not on the big things very often, most likely.
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dewey
Contributor
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 522
Location: California
|
| Post: #18 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:56 am Post subject: Is Moderation the Answer?: |
|
|
|
| whitetrshsoldier wrote: |
Dewey,
Would you accept my phrasing of your statement as follows:
Is Objective, Skeptical Subjugation and Subsequent Analysis of All of Our Beliefs Necessary?
If this is what you mean, then of course you are right. And if we are honestly being objective and skeptically analyzing everything we believe in on a continuous basis, of course we will eventually compromise. Just not on the big things very often, most likely. |
Sorry, whitetrshsoldier, that doesn’t do it for me. It’s part, an important part, of what the moderator does. But he does much more. He analyzes our beliefs or, more accurately, our critical political issues and the alternative or opposed proposals for resolving those issues. He breaks the issues and possible solutions down into sub-issues and sub-solutions. He looks for trade-offs, reconciliations, and compromises.
What are the marks of a successful moderator? One that knows from experience it’s best to be pragmatic and control his idealistic hopes for instant perfection. One that knows from experience that the destination is more surely reached by sticking to the middle of the road. One that knows from experience that the best place to have much faith is in the strength and collective wisdom of the democratic majority and, therefore, to seek its support.
An impressive array of experts can be found on the internet who says that most, if not all, of the unresolved and bitterly debated issues that haunt us so are quite reconcilable. I strongly believe we should adopt the moderation philosophy and put it to work. We can pare the overall issues down by identifying and disposing of the minor and reconcilable component issues. In at least some cases, I think we will be amazed by the results of that preliminary process. The remaining issues will seem simpler, less divisive, and more resolvable.
_________________
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end. "
-Immanuel Kant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #19 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Dewey, I find two basic issues that diminish the value of moderation. the first is the assumption of good intentions and the second is the belief that somehow the compromise is better.
Imagine you are moderating between me who asserts that the function of society is to create individuals and a Marxist who uses Alinsky's rules for radicals to further their aim to subjugate indivduality to the collective.
http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html
| Quote: |
| Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. |
I know that compromise with the agenda driven is meaningless. They consider it a means of manipulation to further the agenda. If you can figure a way to moderate this conflict without shooting someone, you're a better man then I am.
This is why moderation is only useful for unimportant conflicts.
Curiously though from the ontological perspective the idea of the Christ as a mediator is one of the most difficult ideas to grasp since this mediation is between qualities of consciousness so separate in quality that an effort has to come between them to connect them. The mediator in this case consciously receives a conscious help from the higher and gives to the lower which is a completely different concept then moderating between conflicts at the same level.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1710
|
| Post: #20 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The effective moderator/mediator finds win-win solutions as opposed to just encouraging compromise.
For instance, let's say Joe and Beth are arguing over whether to eat at burger joint or an ice cream parlour. In trying to mediate, we find that Joe doesn't mind eating ice cream, but he very much wants to eat a burger but the suggested ice cream parlor doesn't sell burgers. We also find that Beth doesn't mind eating a burger, but she very much wants to have ice cream, and the suggested burger joint doesn't sell ice cream. A win-win 'moderation' could be to go to a shop that sells both burgers and ice cream.
Often times, when you have two or more groups passionately arguing against each other, you find that at least in part they do not directly contradict each other. Often, they want things that are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For instance, say Joe and Beth both win a cool t-shirt prize. They both want it all to themselves. A compromise would be to just share it, each one gets it every other day. But even if they both want it all the time, we may find that Joe is more concerned with having it on weekdays when he will be at work, and that Beth wants it on weekends for her big date. So splitting it up like that would be less compromise and more win-win. In other words, the difference between win-win and compromise is not black and white because two people can each want two things but each person can get what they want more, thus making possible to fall various degrees between a compromise and a win-win.
Politically, freedom often is the win-win solution. Saying, to each his own means that the smoking atheist can happily smoke at home while the cigarette-hating theist can happily not smoke in church with like-minded individuals. It means that he who thinks premarital sex before marriage is immoral but likes to gamble at the casino can happily gamble at the casino as a celibate, and the man who thinks gambling is immoral but likes to have consensual sex with various partners can do that. This freedom is generally a win-win solution, as opposed to criminalizing or half-criminalizing some of these activities and not others--especially since people tend to be more concerned about retaining their own freedom than infringing on others.
Additionally, freedom is a very effective natural moderator. Since free people's interactions must be voluntary, that tends to lead to mutually beneficial relationships, built on natural win-win mediation and some compromise. Customers give some money to a business for a product or service. Each party gives a little but gets something in return. We each do something we don't want to do (e.g. I give away my money), but we each get something we want more than that (e.g. I get the service in return). There may be a little compromise (e.g. I wanted to pay $10 for the product and you wanted me to pay $20, so we negotiated to $15.). But there is also win-win in the sense that the relationship is mutually beneficial, meaning both of us end up happier or better off than before. It's not a zero-sum game because value and desire is subjective.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #21 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I appreciate the value of moderation in the normal happenings in Plato's cave but I fear for the young that are not spiritually dead yet and have the soul of an artist. Surrendering to moderation kills this minority on the inside.
Bobby Fisher was a complete pain in the butt but for me I don't care because he provided such beautiful chess. So many great artists are like this.
The trouble with moderators is that they rarely appreciate "aspiration." It is something that should be moderated. But the artist without aspiration is a commercial artist.
That is one of the things I admire about Simone Weil. She was willing to accept the consequences of annoying advocates of the Great Beast in the cause of this aspiration Albert Camus called a "lucid madness for truth."
It is one thing to urge compromise on small stuff but quite another to compromise ones soul for the sake of moderation. I'm thankful for those that haven't done it. It is through their aspirtion that I have learned much of great value for me.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dewey
Contributor
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 522
Location: California
|
| Post: #22 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:29 am Post subject: Is Moderation the Answer? |
|
|
|
| Nick_A wrote: |
Dewey, I find two basic issues that diminish the value of moderation. the first is the assumption of good intentions and the second is the belief that somehow the compromise is better.
Imagine you are moderating between me who asserts that the function of society is to create individuals and a Marxist who uses Alinsky's rules for radicals to further their aim to subjugate indivduality to the collective. |
I wish I could take full advantage of your cornucopia of opportunities, Nick. But this one might be sufficient.
So, OK, Let’s imagine. A moderator gets your request, as stated above, to moderate the issue. She reads it over. She scratches her head. She reads it again, carefully. She says to herself: I can’t work with this. I see a problem right off. It says that society creates individuals? I’m pretty sure it’s the other way around,
And on the other side it says that Marxists aim to subjugate individuals? OK, she says, at least this one’s in the ball park. I might be able to work with it.. But I’d have to make it more factual and objective – remove the impugned motives stuff and make it clear that such disempowerment of the individual as happens is a result and not an announced objective.
So the moderator will have to return the request to you for the necessary clarification and rework. If, like me, you begin to wonder whether you have a real issue, we could pick one of the more clearly drawn issues to submit to the moderator. There's some really important ones to worry about.
The moderator suggested the abortion issue. It’s got everything a moderator could ask for. And it’s moderator-ready. In fact, the moderator has been working on it. I think she picked an easy one. The issue is clear: whether or not pregnancy can be intentionally halted before birth. Even I can see how silly the two sides are, how close they are without realizing it, and how easily they could agree or compromise on most of the sub-issues and more amicably continue to discuss the remainder.
Just think! What if you put the moderator to work on this abortion squabble, and she nudged the two sides into agreement. What an accomplishment! Much better than fighting, wouldn’t you say?
_________________
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end. "
-Immanuel Kant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #23 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:19 am Post subject: Re: Is Moderation the Answer? |
|
|
|
| Dewey wrote: |
| Nick_A wrote: |
Dewey, I find two basic issues that diminish the value of moderation. the first is the assumption of good intentions and the second is the belief that somehow the compromise is better.
Imagine you are moderating between me who asserts that the function of society is to create individuals and a Marxist who uses Alinsky's rules for radicals to further their aim to subjugate indivduality to the collective. |
I wish I could take full advantage of your cornucopia of opportunities, Nick. But this one might be sufficient.
So, OK, Let’s imagine. A moderator gets your request, as stated above, to moderate the issue. She reads it over. She scratches her head. She reads it again, carefully. She says to herself: I can’t work with this. I see a problem right off. It says that society creates individuals? I’m pretty sure it’s the other way around,
And on the other side it says that Marxists aim to subjugate individuals? OK, she says, at least this one’s in the ball park. I might be able to work with it.. But I’d have to make it more factual and objective – remove the impugned motives stuff and make it clear that such disempowerment of the individual as happens is a result and not an announced objective.
So the moderator will have to return the request to you for the necessary clarification and rework. If, like me, you begin to wonder whether you have a real issue, we could pick one of the more clearly drawn issues to submit to the moderator. There's some really important ones to worry about.
The moderator suggested the abortion issue. It’s got everything a moderator could ask for. And it’s moderator-ready. In fact, the moderator has been working on it. I think she picked an easy one. The issue is clear: whether or not pregnancy can be intentionally halted before birth. Even I can see how silly the two sides are, how close they are without realizing it, and how easily they could agree or compromise on most of the sub-issues and more amicably continue to discuss the remainder.
Just think! What if you put the moderator to work on this abortion squabble, and she nudged the two sides into agreement. What an accomplishment! Much better than fighting, wouldn’t you say? |
Sheesh Dewey, nothing worse than a university trained female moderator. She scratches her head and comes to the conclusion this guy's nuts so has the audacity to ask me to reword the obvious or worse yet, change the subject into a fashionable conflict like abortion. Well if she's hot enough it could be worthwhile, 
But then again she may be an exception that is willing to open themselves to the politically incorrect.
I'd then say to her "I know the idea of society creating individuals seems absurd but if you are truly open to what is meant by this, I suggest reading Simone Weil's book 'A Need for Roots' which I warn you is very politically incorrect. However since it was written when she was dying as her suggestion for rebuilding France after Hitler's devastation, there is much food for the open unmoderated mind. But now since you are unaware of these things there is no use moderating this basic conflict.
As far as the abortion issue is concerned consider the following quote:
| Quote: |
| "From the beginning of our history the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been abandoned." Charles Sumner |
Always consider what you might lose due to nudging
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1966
|
| Post: #24 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
You are opening up a whole can of worms here Dewey!
Man is a work in progress and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
Opposites are a natural aspect of this world, more so when considering mans natural capacity for rebellion. There is also the natural struggle between good and evil to consider which then leads one to question what is good and what is evil, what is the middle ground between the two?. For some the lines of demarcation are clear and the concepts which separate the two are clear. A moderator cannot work for the good since compromise ultimately leads to capitulation. Subtlety is nothing more than manipulation.
1+1 is always 2, all moderation does is make 1+1+1=3, and so forth.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dewey
Contributor
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 522
Location: California
|
| Post: #25 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:27 pm Post subject: Is Moderation the Answer? |
|
|
|
Hello again, Nick_A and Juice,
Before I give this argument another try, I need to observe our tradition of trading quotations. I hope you like this one.
Eleanor Roosevelt: “All big things in human history have been arrived at slowly and through many compromises.”
OK, down to business. In the spirit of compromise, I have tried to pretend as you do (1) that moderating is just compromising and (2) that compromising is only for trivial conflicts. I don't see how you do it. The facts kept getting in my way.
Maybe your hangup is basically in that term, “moderating” . How about if I call it “conflict management”? Does that ring some bells?
Just to refresh our memories: conflict management employs five strategies:
• Collaborating: win/win
• Compromising: win some/lose some
• Accommodating: lose/win
• Competing: win/lose
• Avoiding: no winners/no losers
So, indeed, all roads do lead to Rome, or in this case to “compromising”.
I would like to propose a mutual compromise in our little conflict of ideas. l concede that compromising on critical issues can be dangerous and requires great caution. You concede that the conflicts must be defined fairly and objectively.
I hope you will agree. It‘s your chance for a new experience – a win-win.
_________________
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end. "
-Immanuel Kant |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #26 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Dewey
| Quote: |
| Eleanor Roosevelt: “All big things in human history have been arrived at slowly and through many compromises.” |
Yes, it is through compromise that wars and genocides begin which are big things. Pacifism is a form of compromise that leads to war.
I don't need to appear rude but these five strategies for conflict management are just naive. To think that collaborating leads to a win win position assumes a mind set that if it existed would make conflict management unnecessary. Collaborating is only beneficial with people having mutual goals. Without this premise, win win is naive.
| Quote: |
| I would like to propose a mutual compromise in our little conflict of ideas. l concede that compromising on critical issues can be dangerous and requires great caution. You concede that the conflicts must be defined fairly and objectively. |
I would agree. However once you see why you cannot do it, it will open up a whole new realistic dimension as to the limitations of conflict management.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 1671
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Post: #27 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:11 am Post subject: Re: Is Moderation the Answer? |
|
|
|
| Dewey wrote: |
Hello again, Nick_A and Juice,
Before I give this argument another try, I need to observe our tradition of trading quotations. I hope you like this one.
Eleanor Roosevelt: “All big things in human history have been arrived at slowly and through many compromises.”
OK, down to business. In the spirit of compromise, I have tried to pretend as you do (1) that moderating is just compromising and (2) that compromising is only for trivial conflicts. I don't see how you do it. The facts kept getting in my way.
Maybe your hangup is basically in that term, “moderating” . How about if I call it “conflict management”? Does that ring some bells?
Just to refresh our memories: conflict management employs five strategies:
• Collaborating: win/win
• Compromising: win some/lose some
• Accommodating: lose/win
• Competing: win/lose
• Avoiding: no winners/no losers
So, indeed, all roads do lead to Rome, or in this case to “compromising”.
I would like to propose a mutual compromise in our little conflict of ideas. l concede that compromising on critical issues can be dangerous and requires great caution. You concede that the conflicts must be defined fairly and objectively.
I hope you will agree. It‘s your chance for a new experience – a win-win. |
How is what you're proposing here different from what I said in the following quote, Dewey?
| whitetrshsoldier wrote: |
Dewey,
Would you accept my phrasing of your statement as follows:
Is Objective, Skeptical Subjugation and Subsequent Analysis of All of Our Beliefs Necessary?
If this is what you mean, then of course you are right. And if we are honestly being objective and skeptically analyzing everything we believe in on a continuous basis, of course we will eventually compromise. Just not on the big things very often, most likely. |
_________________
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3850
|
| Post: #28 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Nick_A wrote: |
Dewey
| Quote: |
| Eleanor Roosevelt: “All big things in human history have been arrived at slowly and through many compromises.” |
Yes, it is through compromise that wars and genocides begin which are big things. Pacifism is a form of compromise that leads to war.
I don't need to appear rude but these five strategies for conflict management are just naive. To think that collaborating leads to a win win position assumes a mind set that if it existed would make conflict management unnecessary. Collaborating is only beneficial with people having mutual goals. Without this premise, win win is naive.
| Quote: |
| I would like to propose a mutual compromise in our little conflict of ideas. l concede that compromising on critical issues can be dangerous and requires great caution. You concede that the conflicts must be defined fairly and objectively. |
I would agree. However once you see why you cannot do it, it will open up a whole new realistic dimension as to the limitations of conflict management. |
Neville Chamberlain the prime minister of England at the time immediately before WWII tried to compromise with Hitler. It was when Hitler invaded Poland that compromise became impossible and we were driven to be in a state of war with Germany. This was because if compromise is to work all parties have to be willing to compromise.
Compromise is what the fanatical Hitler would not do. The Taleban are also fanatics who will not compromise.
When our nations sit round a table and talk the aim is a compromise. In Britain we have been having a postal workers' strike and this was resolved by a compromise, much to everyone's relief, with Christmas coming on especially.
However, moderation is what we hope will prevail in Islam which may also be the body of beliefs that underly islamic fanaticism, which is commonly called 'islamism'.So, bearing in mind the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, I'd say that compromise is the preserve of moderates in religion and politics.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #29 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Belinda
| Quote: |
| I'd say that compromise is the preserve of moderates in religion and politics. |
True, but compromise is also what destroys purity. Is there anything that you value that you don't want compromised?
Lack of compromise is what produces the fanatics but also what denies the value of what those like Jesus offer. Jesus easily could have compromised but didn't. Is this ignorance or an expression of something of great importance we are normally oblivious of?
You cannot sincerely ponder the question of compromise before experiencing something you wouldn't compromise on.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1966
|
| Post: #30 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I believe that people who already agree with eachother collaborate or they do so as a matter of appeasement out of some real and/or perceived inherent weakness.
I agree with Nick that compromise destroys purity and conviction and the reality that there are right and wrong and those in the right should not compromise.
Right thinking is directly attainable as a result of a strong moral preface as such moderating can be seen as desiring a strong moral preface to abdicate being that wrong thinking will consider any abdication of good a victory.
It is easier for an evil man to hide among good people than it is for a good man to hide among evil for the simple fact that evil will compromise to his own selfish sake while the good man will stick to his convictions for the greater good.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
