Dealing With Conflict
A short time ago it was suggested that a molecule could be created through online communications. One of the things that will have to be dealt with in a molecule will be various disagreements. Since we had one recently, I thought it may be a good opportunity to illustrate two things. One is how difficult and slow it is to solve any problem online. We could have probably hashed out this Awlaki problem in person within an hour or so but here we have spent many days and intensive hours in writing and still we have not gotten beyond the first simple point of whether Obama’s action to kill Awlaki was legal.
The second problem that is illustrated is how difficult it is to solve personality disagreements when they come up. What seems simple and clear to some is very complex to others.
Another problem is that many tune out when a round of disagreements materialize whereas in person most people are willing to wade through a couple hours of arbitration.
I tried to break down the various elements of the problem in an attempt to make it solvable. If we started out talking about what is right or wrong then emotions will run high. I thought I would begin by examining whether or not the action was legal – which should have had nothing to do with good or bad, but still, we did not escape dealing with conflict from the beginning.
I think that seeing the futility here of bringing harmony between two good people illustrates the difficulty we will face in creating a united Molecule. Obviously, we will need to draw from a large pool of seekers to create the first unified molecule.
After the first one is created the second will be easier, however.
This arguing process on this concise subject has become very time consuming and not doing anything to convince our one guy who is still disagreeing.
Definitions
A reader and I have about exhausted ourselves going round and round on the first point of our discussion concerning the hit on Awlaki. It is time to ask what the root cause of the disagreement is.
One of the main problems in our communications is that we are using different definitions of core words.
I always use the most standard or obvious meanings of words unless I define them otherwise in my writings. Many people do not do this, especially those who have been immersed in some school of thought with a strong point of view. Such people often use their pet words with unorthodox meanings without explaining they are using non-standard definitions.
There are two words that have been interfering with our communication.
The first is “Right.”
Our friend thinks that the noun or legal “right” is similar in meaning to the word when it is used as an adjective or adverb. In other words, you have a right to do a thing if it is right, moral and of good report.
He thus sees himself as having a right to own a gun because it is a good thing that we have the freedom to bear arms.
It is good that we have free speech therefore it is our right, even if it was not granted by the constitution or by any law.
The trouble with using this definition is that following it can get such a believer in trouble.
My friend Wayne went by this definition and thought it was right, moral and good that he should be able to drive without a license. Therefore, he thought he had “the right” to do so and went ahead and did it. This bullheadedness on his part brought him a tremendous amount of grief and expense. He was arrested regularly and several times spent time in jail. Not only me and my wife, but numerous friends tried talking him into getting a license, arguing that it would make his life so much easier. Unfortunately, he thought it was his right to drive without a license because it was immoral for the State to decree otherwise.
Wayne also thought it was his right to not pay income taxes. Because the tax was immoral in his eyes he just did not pay for about 40 years of his life. He would get calls every few years from the IRS but he told them that if they came to his door he would be waiting with a shotgun. Amazingly, that seemed to keep them at bay until he died.
He didn’t have such good luck with the city though. He put up some buildings on his property without building permits and the city fined him on a monthly basis. Again, when the city threatened other action he told them he would be waiting with a shotgun and that seemed to physically hold them off but he had so many liens slapped on his property I don’t think his daughter got a penny of inheritance at his death.
I could write a book about Wayne’s unusual ways. I left out a lot of good stuff about him in The Immortal because I didn’t want to offend him or get him in trouble, but now he’s passed that won’t be such a concern.
Anyway, Wayne seemed to look at rights the same way our current reader does and it led to all kinds of trouble and possibly an early death. He wasn’t very happy with his life and didn’t even want a long life.
When I have been speaking of rights, I have used the common definition which is, “legal authority.” If I have a legal right to do something then I will not live in fear of being arrested. We have the right to free speech and even have the right to criticize the president legally.
In North Korea they do not have that right and would be arrested if citizens criticize their Dear Leader there.
The second word our reader and I are having a problem with is “legal.” Again I use the common definition that the dictionary says is something “allowed by law.”
On the other hand, our friend associates legal with morality and feels that if something is illegal it is immoral. On the other hand, moral things are legal. Therefore, if he is doing good works and seems to be harming no one then he is always legal even if the cops and judges say he is breaking the law.
A member suggested that he use a term more in harmony with our legal system to enhance communication.
That would be helpful but we have probably gone as far as possible with the communication barriers we have. Our reader simply thinks that killing Awlaki was not legal and a violation of rights because it was immoral plain and simple.
It is difficult to turn around a person’s value judgments. For instance, I love my kids and no one is going to talk me out of this no matter what facts they present.
I think the rest of the group are pretty much in agreement on the Awlaki situation and the one who disagrees is merely using a different definition of terms.
The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it. – George Bernard Shaw
Oct 22, 2011
Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE
Easy Access to All the Writings
For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE