Tao wrote:Refusing to understand that a vast percentage of why we do things the way we do them has only the most tenuous ties to vitality leaves us often roped to the that's-the-way-we've-always-done-it,-that's-the-only-way-it-can-be-done mentality.
Just popping in to say that it's not necessarily that we refuse to understand. These things aren't always conscious to us. We're not always aware that another alternative exists because we've never seen another alternative in practice. Now, after that alternative has been made known to us and we still refuse to consider it--you might have a point there.
I may be branching off of your intended topic, but I've often thought of this in the context of inventions. We've been using the light bulb for the past 100 years or so, but nobody has really tried to improve upon it until recently. Why? Because it works! Why would we try to improve something that works? That's often how it goes, we stop trying once we find something that works. People simply don't think about the fact that there still might be something better...
I actually find all this rather fascinating (and I always love listening to Richard Feynman). I'm content to simply listen at this point to your discussion on the larger points that the author was making, but I just wanted briefly to latch on to this part here:
Tao wrote:
I'm going to propose a lot of us are like those aliens that ask 'why.' And a lot more of us need to start looking at the frameworks and assumptions that allow for our 'truths.' But for right now, I'll just focus on the aliens who ask 'why?' Since we don't have the same paradigms, assumptions and 'framework that allows for it to be true,' the 'simple' answers we get make no sense.
Readers (the aliens!) ask questions to better understand something or learn something that they previously didn't know. The writer, of course, being mostly human, has to decide for werfself how deeply the reader wants to understand or to learn and answer accordingly. Sometimes the answer is unsatisfactory to the reader; sometimes the response is so thoroughly detailed and overwhelming that the reader finds it difficult to digest. However, I believe that the process goes a long way towards "syncing" up both parties in terms of "paradigms, assumptions, and 'framework that allows for [the idea] to be true.'" Without asking and answering the questions of "why," we will find it difficult to understand each other and the world around us.
What this all boils down to is why I love being involved with the Board! The "aliens" challenge my understanding and beliefs, causing me to reflect more deeply on why I understand or believe things the way I do. Then I, the alien to the aliens, attempt to elucidate these thoughts in response. I would be lying if I said that the process wasn't difficult, but, it is ultimately quite satisfying.
I have antennae coming out the side of my head, don't I?
Tao wrote: To bring up another recently discussed topic: whether or not women hold the priesthood is a 90% issue to me. I could hardly care less if they did and men didn't, if it was a joint thing, or if only one tribe in thirteen did. As long as someone does, and the subsequent blessings are made efficacious, I'd say the core matter is covered.
With the author of the blog (Marc MacYoung), however, this is a 10% core issue.
For example, should men be in charge? Should men and women share power equally? Or, using mythical amazons, should women be in charge? On one hand, you have the making for a great squabble. On the other hand, it doesn't matter who is granted the power in a particular culture. What matters is the distribution of power is established, gender roles are addressed and some kind of 'system' is worked out that an overwhelming majority follows -- in THAT particular culture. These are 10 percent issues.
In Marc's opinion there is no right or wrong answer, as long as someone is in charge in the Church, it doesn't matter whether it is men or women or a joint thing. As long as it is understood and accepted by the overwhelming majority. I interpret Marc to mean that the 90% fluff or crud is what we have surrounding that core issue and supports it. To him, the Bible would be crud. Modern revelation would be crud. All our officers and procedures, our Handbook of Instruction, our customs would be crud. The core issue, one of the main things that makes Mormon culture somewhat unique, is that men and only men have the priesthood. Our culture has solved the problem of who is in charge, and no one can say it is right or wrong, according to Marc.
There is a problem when some group tries to change the way Mormon culture has settled this 10% core issue. A change in the core value is something that we should care very deeply about. We do not know why God ordained it to be the way it is, but we cannot lightly dismiss it as being unimportant. It is critical. For all we know God could have introduced a different solution to who is is charge, and as long as we supported what God had established all would be well. But I think Marc would say that it is very important to us to support our core 10% - who is in charge on earth. Otherwise we have cultural chaos.
Heh, funny that you would quote the very thing I would point to to disagree, vorpal. Re-read the passage that you just posted; in effect he is saying the same thing that is in what you quoted from my post. The question of gender gets an "I could hardly care less" from me and an "it doesn't matter who is granted the power" from Marc. The core issue for me is "As long as someone does [hold the priesthood]" and for Marc "What matters is the distribution of power is established".
As for the rest of your post, I can't really make head nor tails of it. Your thesis seems to be "it is very important to us to support our core 10%" which, as far as I can see, is tautological. Your penultimate paragraph seems to start out alright and then wanders off into some rather odd directions, producing two statements that look like they directly contradict themselves. I'm not really sure which way to take it.
I wonder if you may be missing the point of the dismissive nature of the 90%. When you type crud think "of cultural value only" and see what you come up with. Some things obviously don't fit: "Modern revelation would be of cultural value only" simply doesn't work; modern revelation is a core issue within the LDS faith. On the other hand others become just as plain: "our customs would be of cultural value only" is perfectly valid (in my eyes) and we would do well to think on it more often. Perhaps then we wouldn't have unit leaders attempting to excommunicate a female member of their congregation for wearing slacks to church (sadly a true happenstance), or members looking down at a convert for not folding his arms and/or closing his eyes during prayer (try to find the doctrine behind that particular bit of culture). Here we have examples of individuals who couldn't tell the 90 from the 10, and put things with significantly less import at the same level or above core issues. (Or, as stated in the article: "those who mistake their version of the 90 percent as the ultimate answer and only way to do thing[s.]")
The author isn't saying do away with culture or ignore social norms; he isn't advocating the removal of the 90% issues. As I see it, his points are twofold: (1) to inform the normal audience of this 90/10 dichotomy; hopefully giving them the opportunity to be more forgiving when others don't meet their social/cultural expectations "...helpful when ...dealing with someone when you can't understand WHY they're acting this way". (2) to inform the 'alien' audience of the 90/10 mentality of 'normal' people and reminding them that although they may have the important (core) issues covered, you need to do what you can to update yourself to the latest social expectations, to keep things running smoothly. "The truth is these 'that's just how it's done' protocols actually DO serve a purpose. ... This is a serious communication problem if you're wired differently."
This leads to the grand conclusion: "So what does this have to do with conflict? ... Many conflicts arise from people not using the same version of the 90 percent." "If you look at it this way, all kinds of conflicts take on whole new perspectives. This includes why someone can seem to be so totally irrational and not see the obvious, when, in fact, maybe you need to slow down and look at your own unconscious assumptions."
So, the next time you get in an argument over (x*), slow down, consider what your unconscious assumptions may be and how they differ from the individual you are conversing with, see which (if any) are core issues to the discussion, and which are window dressings, and then be more understanding if your counterpart hasn't gotten the same update you have. After all, you were just as bull-headed 30 seconds ago before you took that moment to look inward.
