I have decided to start putting my vLogs on here... well, the newer ones, lol.
Here is my vLog for today:
Emotion vs. Logic
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Logic vs. Emotion
I am in the middle of reading a book that a friend let me borrow a while back... granted, I should have finished it a while ago, but alas, I procrastinate. Anywho, I recently came upon a section that really meant a lot to me, and so, I feel I will share its thoughts with you.
Generally speaking, people prefer emotional and subtle arguments to straight forward, logical arguments. This may make perfect sense to you, but please refrain from yelling your "DUH"s at me, as this is actually earth shattering to me, lol. I had a post a while back about how I was finding it extremely difficult to communicate with people. In fact, I think I had several posts on the topic. Essentially, I could not figure out why on earth it was possible to convey a single point to someone. Well, it turns out that I was going about it all the wrong way...
In conversation, for the last several months, I have divorced myself from emotional persuasion and subtle manipulation so that I could speak logically and directly with people. This was my way of showing them respect. Instead of using subtle vocal queues, or various emotional tactics to persuade someone, I was using simple and bland logic. Well, as it turns out, when you are blunt and logical with people, it actually offends them.
Now, I am sure at this point, many of you are like "HEY, I like blunt logic"... however, I would argue that you are probably fooling yourself. Or, at least, I was most certainly fooling myself to believe such a statement. While I wanted fairness and openness, what I did not expect was such a great divorce from emotion and passion. Suddenly, I found myself talking about death as if it were some abstract concept, instead of the end of a being's life.
For some brief background... there are probably some things that you should know about me. When I was a kid, I would question everything. More or less, I was this great funnel for "How the World Works", lol. That affinity for knowledge, however, was curtailed by several social concepts around me. Specifically, that a man can not survive reading books all day, lol. Fortunately for me, I was never allowed to camp out in my ivory tower, as my family was and is a very goal driven, success oriented family. When it came to volitle moments in my life, those times when I wanted to hide in my tower to either cry alone, or thrown down rocks from above, (especially once I entered high school) my parents were generally unforgiving towards me being emotionally reclusive. Whether it was something that made me upset or sad, both my father and mother always "resolved" the situation by reminding me that in the "real world", time does not stand still while you work out your problems. Now, in their defense, I do understand where they are coming from. They did a lot of hard work to get where they are at, and they do not want me to be controlled by my emotions in so far as it would hurt my productivity. Essentially, they were saying to me that it is okay to feel sad or alone, but those feelings should not make you hide under your bed.... To be honest with you all, I totally agree with that assessment... even though it was not easy to accept at the time. However, being the overachiever and perfectionist that I am... I believe I took that suggestion to far.
Approximately 7-8 months ago, I ended a relationship that I thought was going to last me my entire life. In ending that relationship, in many ways, I felt like I was giving up on love, on joy, on hope, and on my happy ending. This was one of those moments when I really wanted to hide up in my ivory tower and cry myself to sleep. However, I think I may have done something even worse. Instead of crying in my tower, I read... a lot. More or less, I just shut down emotionally, and decided that logic and reason were my gods. While I still held my faith in God, I most certainly became twisted as an individual. Within a few months, I found myself, for lack of a better term, thinking like an theistic agnostic, or perhaps even an atheist would. These thoughts were not pertaining to God, but rather to the way I lived my life.
I understood that God would love me no matter what kind of person I was, and so I began to question some fundament things about my lifestyle. For example, why I was not drinking.( For those of you who dont know, many years ago, I decided to wait until I was married to drink (for several personal reasons)). However, with my relationship gone, and much hope feeling abandoned, I started to wonder why I was not drinking. Now, just so you know, I am not talking about getting drunk, but rather just socially drinking. Also, I started to question why I was not just "dating around" with not specific goal for marriage. To me, it seemed like the thing to do for people my age, and I knew it would make me feel better, and yet I could not bring myself to do it... and I just did not know why.
Fortunately I was smart enough to realize that I was in a fractured state of mind, and so I did not allow myself to act on any of my decisions for that period of time. One I started teaching, I found joy and hope again in life. My knowledge and reason became extroverted instead of introverted... In time, I felt more confident in many of my personal reasons for abstinence (in many areas in my life). However, the general logic still remained to a large extent. I still felt like logic and reason were far better gods than emotion... and that when it came to conversations, they were best served cold and dry.
For several months, I taught debate at Metro. I taught on the issues, the philosophy, the evidence... you name it, we discussed it. Then came regionals, and I just knew that we were a shoe-in for state. The person who would later win regionals was using one of my sample cases that I presented to the class, verbatim. (his entire case, I defeated in class as an example, long before this tournament). When the awards were announced, I was in complete disbelief that none of my students even made it to the finals.
However, now that is all making a lot more sense to me. The first day after class, I returned and told them something that even I at the time didnt fully understand: "It doesnt matter how right, or intelligent you are... If you cant convey your Truth to a judge, you become irrelevant".
Their struggle was my struggle. Their failure was my failure. I had created intelligent, emotionless machines of Truth and logic. They knew their material better than anyone else. They found ways to be right, on both sides of the resolution... and yet to the world, we were nothing but monsters. It is not surprise that one of my debaters got really low speaking points, even though she is an excellent speaker. That only happens when you piss a judge off.
Through months of logic and reasoning and training, they were no better off than myself. They were right, but irrelevant to the rest of the world.
Now, all of that is about to change. I was once a very charismatic person, and I believe I would like that lifestyle again. It has been months since I have seen myself without dark circles around my eyes... and I think it is about time to remember the reasons why we live and why we even debate in the first place. Debate is suppose to be about conveying truth, not about defeating someone else. Debate is suppose to be about leading people to the light, and not simply being "right" on a given issue. Debate is suppose to be a search, not an Army march. Debate is suppose to be a dance, and instead I have been treating it like a machine.
In life, we do not give out attention or respect to the "right" or the incredibly intelligent... but rather, most people turn their ears to those that draw them in... those who seem to radiate a light that we want. There is a reason why we care what celebrities think about the presidential race... and that reason has nothing to do with their expertise in the field.
In teaching people to "persuade", I was focused on the arguments and the logic, and yet was ignoring the fact that 80% of communication is non-verbal. In the end, I will blame it on me being a man... as any woman knows that "it is not what you say, but how you say it"... :-)
I believe it is time for me to rethink how I am going about communicating to people... and it is about time that I start to capitalize on the skills of my persuasive female friends... seduction, here I come! :-)
Oh, and in response to my last question, this is why I am doing a vLog... because 80% of communication is non-verbal... and therefore text is just too limiting.
Generally speaking, people prefer emotional and subtle arguments to straight forward, logical arguments. This may make perfect sense to you, but please refrain from yelling your "DUH"s at me, as this is actually earth shattering to me, lol. I had a post a while back about how I was finding it extremely difficult to communicate with people. In fact, I think I had several posts on the topic. Essentially, I could not figure out why on earth it was possible to convey a single point to someone. Well, it turns out that I was going about it all the wrong way...
In conversation, for the last several months, I have divorced myself from emotional persuasion and subtle manipulation so that I could speak logically and directly with people. This was my way of showing them respect. Instead of using subtle vocal queues, or various emotional tactics to persuade someone, I was using simple and bland logic. Well, as it turns out, when you are blunt and logical with people, it actually offends them.
Now, I am sure at this point, many of you are like "HEY, I like blunt logic"... however, I would argue that you are probably fooling yourself. Or, at least, I was most certainly fooling myself to believe such a statement. While I wanted fairness and openness, what I did not expect was such a great divorce from emotion and passion. Suddenly, I found myself talking about death as if it were some abstract concept, instead of the end of a being's life.
For some brief background... there are probably some things that you should know about me. When I was a kid, I would question everything. More or less, I was this great funnel for "How the World Works", lol. That affinity for knowledge, however, was curtailed by several social concepts around me. Specifically, that a man can not survive reading books all day, lol. Fortunately for me, I was never allowed to camp out in my ivory tower, as my family was and is a very goal driven, success oriented family. When it came to volitle moments in my life, those times when I wanted to hide in my tower to either cry alone, or thrown down rocks from above, (especially once I entered high school) my parents were generally unforgiving towards me being emotionally reclusive. Whether it was something that made me upset or sad, both my father and mother always "resolved" the situation by reminding me that in the "real world", time does not stand still while you work out your problems. Now, in their defense, I do understand where they are coming from. They did a lot of hard work to get where they are at, and they do not want me to be controlled by my emotions in so far as it would hurt my productivity. Essentially, they were saying to me that it is okay to feel sad or alone, but those feelings should not make you hide under your bed.... To be honest with you all, I totally agree with that assessment... even though it was not easy to accept at the time. However, being the overachiever and perfectionist that I am... I believe I took that suggestion to far.
Approximately 7-8 months ago, I ended a relationship that I thought was going to last me my entire life. In ending that relationship, in many ways, I felt like I was giving up on love, on joy, on hope, and on my happy ending. This was one of those moments when I really wanted to hide up in my ivory tower and cry myself to sleep. However, I think I may have done something even worse. Instead of crying in my tower, I read... a lot. More or less, I just shut down emotionally, and decided that logic and reason were my gods. While I still held my faith in God, I most certainly became twisted as an individual. Within a few months, I found myself, for lack of a better term, thinking like an theistic agnostic, or perhaps even an atheist would. These thoughts were not pertaining to God, but rather to the way I lived my life.
I understood that God would love me no matter what kind of person I was, and so I began to question some fundament things about my lifestyle. For example, why I was not drinking.( For those of you who dont know, many years ago, I decided to wait until I was married to drink (for several personal reasons)). However, with my relationship gone, and much hope feeling abandoned, I started to wonder why I was not drinking. Now, just so you know, I am not talking about getting drunk, but rather just socially drinking. Also, I started to question why I was not just "dating around" with not specific goal for marriage. To me, it seemed like the thing to do for people my age, and I knew it would make me feel better, and yet I could not bring myself to do it... and I just did not know why.
Fortunately I was smart enough to realize that I was in a fractured state of mind, and so I did not allow myself to act on any of my decisions for that period of time. One I started teaching, I found joy and hope again in life. My knowledge and reason became extroverted instead of introverted... In time, I felt more confident in many of my personal reasons for abstinence (in many areas in my life). However, the general logic still remained to a large extent. I still felt like logic and reason were far better gods than emotion... and that when it came to conversations, they were best served cold and dry.
For several months, I taught debate at Metro. I taught on the issues, the philosophy, the evidence... you name it, we discussed it. Then came regionals, and I just knew that we were a shoe-in for state. The person who would later win regionals was using one of my sample cases that I presented to the class, verbatim. (his entire case, I defeated in class as an example, long before this tournament). When the awards were announced, I was in complete disbelief that none of my students even made it to the finals.
However, now that is all making a lot more sense to me. The first day after class, I returned and told them something that even I at the time didnt fully understand: "It doesnt matter how right, or intelligent you are... If you cant convey your Truth to a judge, you become irrelevant".
Their struggle was my struggle. Their failure was my failure. I had created intelligent, emotionless machines of Truth and logic. They knew their material better than anyone else. They found ways to be right, on both sides of the resolution... and yet to the world, we were nothing but monsters. It is not surprise that one of my debaters got really low speaking points, even though she is an excellent speaker. That only happens when you piss a judge off.
Through months of logic and reasoning and training, they were no better off than myself. They were right, but irrelevant to the rest of the world.
Now, all of that is about to change. I was once a very charismatic person, and I believe I would like that lifestyle again. It has been months since I have seen myself without dark circles around my eyes... and I think it is about time to remember the reasons why we live and why we even debate in the first place. Debate is suppose to be about conveying truth, not about defeating someone else. Debate is suppose to be about leading people to the light, and not simply being "right" on a given issue. Debate is suppose to be a search, not an Army march. Debate is suppose to be a dance, and instead I have been treating it like a machine.
In life, we do not give out attention or respect to the "right" or the incredibly intelligent... but rather, most people turn their ears to those that draw them in... those who seem to radiate a light that we want. There is a reason why we care what celebrities think about the presidential race... and that reason has nothing to do with their expertise in the field.
In teaching people to "persuade", I was focused on the arguments and the logic, and yet was ignoring the fact that 80% of communication is non-verbal. In the end, I will blame it on me being a man... as any woman knows that "it is not what you say, but how you say it"... :-)
I believe it is time for me to rethink how I am going about communicating to people... and it is about time that I start to capitalize on the skills of my persuasive female friends... seduction, here I come! :-)
Oh, and in response to my last question, this is why I am doing a vLog... because 80% of communication is non-verbal... and therefore text is just too limiting.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Truth, my findings
My anonymous friend recently left a comment that I would like to respond to for the purpose of defining what I believe to be Truth, and more specifically, what evidence I have of this Truth. The comment was the following:
The proposition that logic, evidence and experience determining rightness, ironically, is one of the biggest lessons that I learned in debate. And as such, it is something I have been giving a good deal of thought to over the last month or two (in trying to teach debate at Metro)... and this comment just so happens to illustrate something that I would like to challenge with a theory of my own.
With regards to "right" and also with regards to those "better", or rather, those more knowledgeable or more skilled in discourse or philosophizing than me... I will respond with a story:
When I was at Grove City College, I had this theology professor, an older guy, I think in his 70s, maybe 60s, who taught three of my theology classes. He had his doctorate from Princeton, and was a devout Calvinist. With regards to predestination, he had books and books of evidence, as well as extrapolations from scripture, to prove that he was "right". He has been teaching college for 30 years, he is one of the most intelligent theologians at Grove City, and his office is simply a labyrinth of books at best. I must have listened to hours and hours of a dissertation style proposition and defense of several concepts within scripture, and the resultant truths that he concluded, from years of study and experience, as to the Truth of our relationship with God, with man, and with ourself.... and yet, at the end of the day, he was wrong.
I say this plainly because the idea is simple. This is not an exception to the rule. There are thousands of theologians around the world who have proven their truth. All it takes is a listening ear to know that God does not exist, that God does exist, that God does not care about humanity, that God does care about humanity, that salvation is a myth, that salvation is eternal life with God, that it comes by faith, that it comes by work, that Jesus was a prophet, that Jesus was the son of God.
It appears that rightness is sloppy at best in the field of philosophy and theology. The rules of math do not seem to apply. (Ironically, the rules of math, that there is this provable right and wrong, only apply in simple math. Ask any person who has studied advanced math or physics, and they will tell you that anything beyond simply math is all guess work and approximations at best.)
The point I am trying to contend here is simple. The biggest thing that I learned from being in debate is that: just because someone wins an argument or has more legitimate evidence, does not mean they are right.
Tragic, I know. It kind of rocks the boat of Truth. The reason why I contend this is simple. I do not want to think that anything I hold to be right or true is such because it is an extrapolation of evidence or experience. While I hold both of those in high regards, because of my knowledge of their manipulability, I can not find in them adequate grounds to hold something to be in the realm of "I-know-this-is-absolute-Truth kind of right". To me, evidence, experience, and even logic itself is flexible. I should know, as I have often been the flexor to it time and again over the last several years. Morality included, ask any history major, fluxes with time.
Well, then, what are we left with... Should we simply become but existentialist, believing truth and value to only exist as we feel it should? Do we try and define our own reality from the columns of our insanity? I do not think that is or only option.
To me, as it will forever be, Truth resonates within the soul. This is not a contention, an opinion, or a proposition. This is a fact, or more appropriately, a Truth. In the Kingdom of God, Truth resonates within our spirit.
Today I watched Equilibrium, a dystopia wherein society is "saved" by being stripped of its emotion. Such a decision was necessary, as emotion leads to hate and thus war. The contention was simply, that humanity, as a race, will not survive emotion.... one of the primary contention of the film is that emotion is what makes life worth living. A caste or level system is established, wherein basic human function is at the bottom of the ladder, with emotion being at the top. While one can exist without emotion, such a disposition also strips them of their identity and humanity. Without emotion, life becomes pointless.
On the same tune, I will project my own theory, as an extrapolation from the Truth that I know about this world.... While basic human existence is at the bottom, and emotion is surely necessary to be fully human, I do not find it hard to contend that operation within the spiritual realm is what makes life worth living, and thus the top rung of the social latter. To me, as marriage is to illustrate a relationship between man and God, I do also believe that human emotion is to illustrate a relationship between the flesh and the spirit. Marriage demonstrates a bond between two people, and thus demonstrates our bond with God. In the same way, human emotion demonstrates that there is an unpredictable, intangible to life that makes it worth living, thus showing us that there is a Truth that exist outside of our capacity for understanding.
Simply put, it would take a foolish man to believe that he could understand the world. It is wise man that knows that he can not understand the workings of the world, and thus intelligently adjusts his disposition accordingly. The release of cognitive control of our micro universe is not an act of stupidity or surrender, but rather an act of intelligence. While it may seem that the safest way to live life is without emotion, Equilibrium strongly contends that emotion is worth the risk. In the same way, while it most certainly seems that it is safest to live life rejecting things of the spirit, the kingdom of God contends that the ways God are certainly worth the risk.
In the here and now, the Bible speaks of a war, not of peace. While I certainly view piece as our target, and strongly contended that in the hereafter, there will be eternal peace with God, until then, I believe that our strategies of hiding our heads in the sand simply will not do. Unfortunately for us, there is no Canada to move away to in the fight for Truth. In reality, there is the choice to fight, or to slip away into nothingness, eternally forgotten.
In response to Anonymous, I assure you, I will be teaching only that which I know to be True. However, I should also inform you that such Truth was not arrived upon because of any book, or scripture, or life lesson. Rather, it was a culmination of all of the above, with its Truth sorted by the resonance I feel within myself as part of the Kingdom of God.
****************************
I do offer one final comment to anonymous.... I do value peer input in life. While I do believe that by the spirit, we can distinguish Truth from untruth, the does not mean that I or we can spontaneously construct or regurgitate truth. For whatever reason, I do strongly believe that we are social creatures, instructed to live a social life.
With that in mind, I would ask you for your continued input on my earth shattering ideas. And please, if you objected to one of my ideas, give me convincing reasons why, so that we can discuss concepts in their entirety and not simply throw around shocking phrases or titles like only amateurs would. If logic, evidence, scripture, and experience are what you believe to determine "rightness", then when you object to the rightness of any of my ideas, please respond with adequate quantities of each so that we can have a full conversation.
I think you're intelligent enough to know not to teach people things that you know to be untruths. That would go against the Christianity that you hold so dear...I want you to make sure that you're right. Justified, backed up by Scripture and experience, I-know-this-is-absolute-Truth kind of right. Right as in upstanding morality...Because, with all of this introspection coupled with all this isolation in the past few months, you walk a dangerous line of coming to really stunning conclusions or falling into the trap of thinking that you're right all the time because you've had nobody better to compare yourself to. And this isn't just you - anybody would need to watch himself on this issue.
The proposition that logic, evidence and experience determining rightness, ironically, is one of the biggest lessons that I learned in debate. And as such, it is something I have been giving a good deal of thought to over the last month or two (in trying to teach debate at Metro)... and this comment just so happens to illustrate something that I would like to challenge with a theory of my own.
With regards to "right" and also with regards to those "better", or rather, those more knowledgeable or more skilled in discourse or philosophizing than me... I will respond with a story:
When I was at Grove City College, I had this theology professor, an older guy, I think in his 70s, maybe 60s, who taught three of my theology classes. He had his doctorate from Princeton, and was a devout Calvinist. With regards to predestination, he had books and books of evidence, as well as extrapolations from scripture, to prove that he was "right". He has been teaching college for 30 years, he is one of the most intelligent theologians at Grove City, and his office is simply a labyrinth of books at best. I must have listened to hours and hours of a dissertation style proposition and defense of several concepts within scripture, and the resultant truths that he concluded, from years of study and experience, as to the Truth of our relationship with God, with man, and with ourself.... and yet, at the end of the day, he was wrong.
I say this plainly because the idea is simple. This is not an exception to the rule. There are thousands of theologians around the world who have proven their truth. All it takes is a listening ear to know that God does not exist, that God does exist, that God does not care about humanity, that God does care about humanity, that salvation is a myth, that salvation is eternal life with God, that it comes by faith, that it comes by work, that Jesus was a prophet, that Jesus was the son of God.
It appears that rightness is sloppy at best in the field of philosophy and theology. The rules of math do not seem to apply. (Ironically, the rules of math, that there is this provable right and wrong, only apply in simple math. Ask any person who has studied advanced math or physics, and they will tell you that anything beyond simply math is all guess work and approximations at best.)
The point I am trying to contend here is simple. The biggest thing that I learned from being in debate is that: just because someone wins an argument or has more legitimate evidence, does not mean they are right.
Tragic, I know. It kind of rocks the boat of Truth. The reason why I contend this is simple. I do not want to think that anything I hold to be right or true is such because it is an extrapolation of evidence or experience. While I hold both of those in high regards, because of my knowledge of their manipulability, I can not find in them adequate grounds to hold something to be in the realm of "I-know-this-is-absolute-Truth kind of right". To me, evidence, experience, and even logic itself is flexible. I should know, as I have often been the flexor to it time and again over the last several years. Morality included, ask any history major, fluxes with time.
Well, then, what are we left with... Should we simply become but existentialist, believing truth and value to only exist as we feel it should? Do we try and define our own reality from the columns of our insanity? I do not think that is or only option.
To me, as it will forever be, Truth resonates within the soul. This is not a contention, an opinion, or a proposition. This is a fact, or more appropriately, a Truth. In the Kingdom of God, Truth resonates within our spirit.
Today I watched Equilibrium, a dystopia wherein society is "saved" by being stripped of its emotion. Such a decision was necessary, as emotion leads to hate and thus war. The contention was simply, that humanity, as a race, will not survive emotion.... one of the primary contention of the film is that emotion is what makes life worth living. A caste or level system is established, wherein basic human function is at the bottom of the ladder, with emotion being at the top. While one can exist without emotion, such a disposition also strips them of their identity and humanity. Without emotion, life becomes pointless.
On the same tune, I will project my own theory, as an extrapolation from the Truth that I know about this world.... While basic human existence is at the bottom, and emotion is surely necessary to be fully human, I do not find it hard to contend that operation within the spiritual realm is what makes life worth living, and thus the top rung of the social latter. To me, as marriage is to illustrate a relationship between man and God, I do also believe that human emotion is to illustrate a relationship between the flesh and the spirit. Marriage demonstrates a bond between two people, and thus demonstrates our bond with God. In the same way, human emotion demonstrates that there is an unpredictable, intangible to life that makes it worth living, thus showing us that there is a Truth that exist outside of our capacity for understanding.
Simply put, it would take a foolish man to believe that he could understand the world. It is wise man that knows that he can not understand the workings of the world, and thus intelligently adjusts his disposition accordingly. The release of cognitive control of our micro universe is not an act of stupidity or surrender, but rather an act of intelligence. While it may seem that the safest way to live life is without emotion, Equilibrium strongly contends that emotion is worth the risk. In the same way, while it most certainly seems that it is safest to live life rejecting things of the spirit, the kingdom of God contends that the ways God are certainly worth the risk.
In the here and now, the Bible speaks of a war, not of peace. While I certainly view piece as our target, and strongly contended that in the hereafter, there will be eternal peace with God, until then, I believe that our strategies of hiding our heads in the sand simply will not do. Unfortunately for us, there is no Canada to move away to in the fight for Truth. In reality, there is the choice to fight, or to slip away into nothingness, eternally forgotten.
In response to Anonymous, I assure you, I will be teaching only that which I know to be True. However, I should also inform you that such Truth was not arrived upon because of any book, or scripture, or life lesson. Rather, it was a culmination of all of the above, with its Truth sorted by the resonance I feel within myself as part of the Kingdom of God.
****************************
I do offer one final comment to anonymous.... I do value peer input in life. While I do believe that by the spirit, we can distinguish Truth from untruth, the does not mean that I or we can spontaneously construct or regurgitate truth. For whatever reason, I do strongly believe that we are social creatures, instructed to live a social life.
With that in mind, I would ask you for your continued input on my earth shattering ideas. And please, if you objected to one of my ideas, give me convincing reasons why, so that we can discuss concepts in their entirety and not simply throw around shocking phrases or titles like only amateurs would. If logic, evidence, scripture, and experience are what you believe to determine "rightness", then when you object to the rightness of any of my ideas, please respond with adequate quantities of each so that we can have a full conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
