[lit-ideas] How do we build on agreement? [Was Why philosophy?]
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Lit-Ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:33:45 +0900
An interesting dilemma this morning. How to reply to Eric and Walter, whose
most recent messages are filled with sentiments with which I wholly agree
and find most convivial as well? I find myself reflecting on conversational
habits and wondering why it is so much easier to disagree than to build on
what someone else has said. It is, somehow, as if agreement triggers a full
stop--end of story--instead of presenting itself as a starting point for
further development.
I recall Kazuhiko Kimoto, the Senior Creative Director who hired me at
Hakuhodo, pulling my aside one day to say that there are two kinds of
arguments. In one, which he illustrated by knocking his fists together, the
discussion goes nowhere. In another, which he illustrated by holding out his
hand palm down, placing his other hand over it, then pulling the lower hand
out and placing it on top, then repeating the process over and over, so that
his hands rose steadily into the air, progress is made; new ideas emerge.
Is it just that we live in what linguist Deborah Tannen has labeled an
argument culture, exacerbated by litigious or violent conflict models in
mass entertainment and a 24-hour news machine that depends on confrontation,
instead of agreement, for news?
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts: