Thanks for this conversation. I do believe the hopeful future of pluralistic societies resides in believing only peaceful tension is humanly possible. Thus cooperative co-RESISTANCE between TRUSTWORTHY ideological/religious rivals is the goal--not finding similarities or value alignment. You need no trust if you agree on what's most important, true or real. So it is a 'lazy' idea that social order is based on overlapping consensus when it is most profoundly based on the unspoken trust we have that most others will--under pressure of unresolvable conflicts--will desire to respect us enough to not kill, enslave or utterly disregard us. This trust comes first in the 'work' of face-to-face experience (Emmanuel Levinas) and later in the 'work' of sustaining social expectations that contests over 'what matters most' are normal and healthy as long as they do not end with one view being imposed by force on dissenters. OK, my sermon is over. Best wishes for Thanksgiving to the team at Moral Understanding and our impressive social psychological guide, Kurt Gray. Randall Paul, President, Foundation for Religious Diplomacy--breeding ground for trustworthy rivals.
This is a really interesting perspective! There could be other paths to treating others with humanity besides consensus. That sounds like a subject worth exploring.
Lura, check out FRDiplomacy.org for that other perspective. Treating people in their 'wholeness' which often includes the (sincere, not arrogant) perspective that their religion or ideology is truly THE high way, and needs to correct all lower ways. That can be engaged by mutually persuasive conversation in respectful ways that honor the other's similar contrary conviction. Thanks for your response. By the way, Kurt Gray is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy.
Thanks for this conversation. I do believe the hopeful future of pluralistic societies resides in believing only peaceful tension is humanly possible. Thus cooperative co-RESISTANCE between TRUSTWORTHY ideological/religious rivals is the goal--not finding similarities or value alignment. You need no trust if you agree on what's most important, true or real. So it is a 'lazy' idea that social order is based on overlapping consensus when it is most profoundly based on the unspoken trust we have that most others will--under pressure of unresolvable conflicts--will desire to respect us enough to not kill, enslave or utterly disregard us. This trust comes first in the 'work' of face-to-face experience (Emmanuel Levinas) and later in the 'work' of sustaining social expectations that contests over 'what matters most' are normal and healthy as long as they do not end with one view being imposed by force on dissenters. OK, my sermon is over. Best wishes for Thanksgiving to the team at Moral Understanding and our impressive social psychological guide, Kurt Gray. Randall Paul, President, Foundation for Religious Diplomacy--breeding ground for trustworthy rivals.
This is a really interesting perspective! There could be other paths to treating others with humanity besides consensus. That sounds like a subject worth exploring.
Lura, check out FRDiplomacy.org for that other perspective. Treating people in their 'wholeness' which often includes the (sincere, not arrogant) perspective that their religion or ideology is truly THE high way, and needs to correct all lower ways. That can be engaged by mutually persuasive conversation in respectful ways that honor the other's similar contrary conviction. Thanks for your response. By the way, Kurt Gray is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy.
Whoops. Typo. under pressure on unresolvable conflicts . . .