[coberst]

CT (Critical Thinking) and politics

All of us who are interested in politics have a ring-side seat for viewing the CT skills of Obama and Hillary.

How well these two candidates perform one of the most important aspects of CT in the next several months will determine, to a large extent, which party will occupy the White House for the next four years. These two candidates face a daunting task; they must control their race for the White House in such a manner that it will not severely harm the winner’s opportunity to win the 2008 election.

Their struggle for supremacy between now and the convention could very well do significant harm to their party’s chance to win the WH. While they fight against one another John McCann can sit back and prepare for the finals; they must somehow not only compete with one another in a grueling fight but they must do it in a way that will not seem unseemly to the American people who will be carefully watching.

The daunting task these two must navigate in the next few months is to work together in dialogue so as to allow each to fight fiercely in the race while not doing harm to their party in the process. They must be expert at the task of dialogic.

Dialogue combined with dialectical reasoning is equal to dialogic.

In dialogue, person ‘A’ may state a thesis; in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common, ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.” Quotes from “Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life”


“On Dialogue” was written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London”.

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue dialogically we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

Have you ever tried to dialogue dialogically?

[dukey]

i've got money on hillary winning
why ?
because all the 'smart' money and the big players are on her

But say if Obama won, he is just more of the same. They all basically support the same fundamental ideas. To save america the federal reserve needs to be stopped, and the IRS along with it. But only one candidate was interested in that, and the media deliberately ignored him.

Obama and clinton both voted for the patrioct act. Both voted for war funding .. etc etc. They aren't change at all. Clinton will continue the nightmare bush unleashed on your country.

Oh and if you want proof the elections are rigged. How do you explain the republican front runner. Mr nuke Iran, Mr 100 year war, says he doesn't know fuck all about the economy, still calls vietname gooks. LOL. No one in their right mind would vote for that fool.

[paimei01]

I think the election in the US is already done. Look at the massive military and financial and industrial complex, would the ones who own it accept for the danger of some "ordinary person" winning the elections and ruining everything ?

"If the elections would change something they would be illegal"

[coberst]

When we engage in a dialogue what happens? The first thing we find is that dialogue is unlike anything in which we have previously been involved. Group discussions generally digress quickly into verbal food fights and nothing positive is accomplished. Discussions become venues for shouting at one another. The most important thing discovered--provided you wished to advance your thinking so as to develop a means for solving intractable problems--is that skills and attitudes not presently possessed must be developed.

In a dialogue one discovers that advancement of the group toward solutions requires that each member be part of a coherent body wherein all agree to certain standards and procedures. It is necessary to form a solid foundation for the house under construction. The foundation must be solid and the structure true to a standard. In a house construction one sees carpenters using plumb-bobs and levels constantly. What are the plumb-bobs and levels of thought? What are the standards and principles of successful dialogue?

Each member of the dialogue discovers that things never thought of before are the first matters that must be resolved. The science of thought is the first and fundamental consideration that dawn on the participants. What are the fundaments of thought that must be examined?

The science of epistemology imposes itself immediately as a first consideration. Epistemology is the theory and craft of knowing. If the members of the group cannot agree on what knowledge is that group can go no further.

What can the group agree upon as to what is knowledge and what is truth? For all those who have never given such matters any thought this sounds a bit silly. Everyone knows what knowledge is and what truth is. That is a problem. Those never engaged in dialogue are likely to have ever questioned such basic concerns. This whole matter of introducing the concept of dialogue faces the bootstrap problem. The bootstrap problem is one of accomplishing an end when the end to be accomplished is necessary for considering the end to be accomplished. Can the dog ever catch it’s tail?

Only after the group agrees on the nature of the plum bobs and levels of thought will the group be ready to move to the next step. The next barrier that it is likely to face is of the distinction between awareness and consciousness.

Before Americans can dialogue there must be preparation. That preparation is not furnished by our educational system. The only way that Americans can prepare themselves for dialogue is through a process of self-actualizing self-learning. It is here that we must begin our effort to dialogue.

[threadbear]

Hey..I've got an idea. Go put your critical thinking skills to work on the air car thread. I'm convinced that posters logged on to that thread are stifling real communication about alternative solutions, and would be intrigued as to what you think.

[mmasters]

The real critical thinking going on is the people tooling the politicians. Wake up!