Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to How I pick my friends
Ciel - I have not read the book: The Magic of Conflict but understand the
underlying premise very well.
There are a number of facets to the premise of deriving the best from people after intersocial conflict. Conflict itself is likened to an energy source that can be channelled and manipulated. The effects on most humans involved in any form of dispute or intersocial conflict is that they are in most cases disarmed, condusive to comprimise and have had boundaries defined for them. This aspect of human nature and how to deal with these situations effectively is people management skills 101 for anyone running a large company.
posted by
gomedome
on February 28, 2007 at 12:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariala - I couldn't agree more with these words
"I value people who use their minds; who are rational and tolerant of others"
The irrational thought processes of some folks seems to breed intolerance. But ulimately that is what intolerance of others is, an irrational mind set that is inequitable. If an individual or group is intolerant of others for reasons other than socially unnaceptable behaviour, there is a breakdown in reason that has them demanding rights and freedoms that they are not willing to extend to others.
posted by
gomedome
on February 28, 2007 at 12:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Talion - I absolutely agree - there are some folks that will adopt as a
discrimitive criteria; their religious opinions above all other aspects.
This tends to constrict the viewing aperture and possibly divert focus from more important facets of an individual's character. We see this type of thing demonstrated for us constantly in religious groups. For some it seems that a person believing as they do outweighs all other considerations when choosing their associates and even clouds some people's judgement in whom they endorse. We need only look at some of our elected officials as an example of people endorsing someone without weighing all of that individual's qualities (or lack thereof).
posted by
gomedome
on February 28, 2007 at 11:50 AM
| link to this | reply
David1Spirit - my circle of friends is best described as eclectic
I even count a Baptist minister as a close friend which surprises some people.
posted by
gomedome
on February 28, 2007 at 11:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Funny-- I made my latest comment to your previous post,
then came to this one... While you and I may not agree about some specifics, we are on the same wavelength of these values and intents. I echo Ariala's point, too, about different levels of friendship, though I think closeness and love, and successful partnership don't depend on agreement. Could be that some disagreement helps two people who might otherwise disappear into each other, maintain some personal boundaries and individuality.
Have you ever come across a book called THE MAGIC OF CONFLICT?
posted by
Ciel
on February 28, 2007 at 10:43 AM
| link to this | reply
I value people who use their minds; who are rational and tolerant of others
As for agreeing, I find that there are different levels of acquaintences and friendships. At various levels, we have different objectives and criterias. I can have a great business relationship with anyone who is respectful. Their beliefs or nonbeliefs is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, I was looking for a mate, my personal criteria and beliefs would definitely kick in, and I would seek someone of like mind and like faith in order for me to have the type of closeness and connection that I want and need. So, at different levels of friendship, partnerships and working relationships, I believe we all have a different criteria. It becomes more strict the more you know you have to spend intimate time with a person. At least it does for me.
posted by
Ariala
on February 28, 2007 at 10:22 AM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
There are a number of labels that one can use to describe me- male, black, American, middle class, agnostic, etc. These aspects are important depending on the subject, however, none of these labels define me. I'm complex, multi-faceted, and not easily pidgeon-holed. I realize that not everyone will agree with my particular philosophies, opinions, and views of the world. Sometimes "they" are the idiots that have it all wrong. Sometimes the idiot is me. With this in mind, I don't demand others fall in line with my way of thinking. If I can find more things we agree about than disagree, and I am treated the same, almost anyone can become my friend.
Regardless of the label, when a person chooses a particular one as the most important, the one that defines them, when they mold their entire identity upon what should simply be a single interesting facet, they unknowingly adopt the mindset that possibly breeds intolerance and worse. These are the people who won't/can't accept those who disagree. These are the people who won't/can't admit there are possibly other options and paths. With all their eggs in one basket, these are the people who can't afford to be wrong. They've painted themselves into a corner. Any criticism is viewed as the most heinous attack on their being and like a cornered animal, they come out fighting.
posted by
Talion
on February 28, 2007 at 10:02 AM
| link to this | reply
gomedome - Good post, and I am with you on that
Of course I tend to gravitate toward like-minded people; but I'll hang out with anyone who practices tolerance and a willingness to accept disagreements as nothing more than that.
posted by
David1Spirit
on February 28, 2007 at 9:17 AM
| link to this | reply