14 Comments
Sep 9, 2023Liked by Peter N Limberg

An excellent piece! Works like this which systematically and carefully navigate through these different tools and modes of conversation and engagement are invaluable. I found this very insightful and well-written, a pleasure to read!

Expand full comment
Sep 9, 2023Liked by Peter N Limberg

You bring here, medicine for our moments.

A many faceted, many threaded, many tentacled, mycelium

Of so many different actors (and audiences)

here enacting on-in-with-from this and that platform-dimension.

You nail it, nail each of them, nail How it is

to be me, to be us, and disagree.

Such refinements to humbly call in with us

Into this space In Between!

No wonder. Yes wonder.

Expand full comment
Sep 9, 2023Liked by Peter N Limberg

I will read this again. My first impression is that there are really important self-discoveries to be made by applying these techniques of understanding. I doubt I can draw my friend out of his 'slippery' technique of infinite regress, though. It's gone on for 50 years, leading me to ignore him at this point.

I think there are often existential terrors in play, when people attempt to navigate these things.

Expand full comment

Very valuable articulation -- except for assumptions implicit in the premiss: People need to get better at disagreeing because many people are wrong. The possibility that one may oneself be wrong is seemingly ignored. For development of the points relating to meta-communication, see Meta-communication as characterizing exemplary dialogue? (https://shorturl.at/uJNQ0)

Expand full comment
author

One of the "suppressed premises" in the piece is that you want to foster a healthy culture of disagreement amongst your friends of virtue so you can find out where you are wrong.

And whoa. This link has some rich resources.

Expand full comment

I had given up on arguing until I read "Think Again" by Adam Grant. That book had an excellent summary of why arguing is important. This article is an excellent summary of why arguing can be annoying!

I have no idea how many times my philosopher/lawyer siblings and parents have fallen into the slippery trap, but it was enough to convince me to move to another country!

Expand full comment
author

😂. The slippery ones are indeed expatting-inspo.

Expand full comment
Sep 9, 2023Liked by Peter N Limberg

And to add to the vocabulary of disagreementing -- Just noticed a snippet from a comment under Jacob Needleman "Why Bother Listening to Opinions You Disagree With" post from 16 yrs ago:

Why? Because it will help me learn the art of "navigating and negotiating through differences" into morer open fields.

Expand full comment
Sep 9, 2023Liked by Peter N Limberg

Powerful article, Peter! I appreciate the unique articulation of the responses to disagreement that you laid out! (And the outcomes)

There are some programs that teach these more nuanced skills and support growing one’s self as instrument (helpful vertical development where the ‘meta’ perspective you mentions becomes more accessible) - for example, the Integral Facilitator path and Next Stage Facilitation. - https://tendirections.com/next-stage/

Expand full comment

You mentioned the annoying aspect of Socrates.

You Ever dabbled in Twilight of the Idols?

“The dialectician leaves it to his opponent to prove he is not an idiot. He infuriates him and leaves him helpless at the same time.”

I love Socrates myself (Nietzsche had a respect for his cleverness as well) but fair point, lol

Expand full comment
author

Nietzsche, while brilliant, did not strike me as having basic social skills.

Expand full comment

For sure, That guy was a constant opponent process

Expand full comment

Peter, please can you switch on the audio player function. I sometimes like to listen to the Substacks I subscribe to. For some reason the play button on this one is non-operative.

Expand full comment

"People do not know how to disagree well. People need to get better at disagreeing because many people are wrong." Are you talking about factually wrong? Or about opinions? Does it make a difference? Is it possible to know? Could the problem of being wrong be that we agree to be wrong together and collude in its perpetuation? Are you familiar with the Abilene Paradox? It is not what we disagree on that gets in trouble rather it is what we agree on!

Expand full comment