Tag: opposites

Posted in In my humble opinion...

Thinking Isn’t Hard but Speaking Is- Food for Thought

Posted on by Susan St.Pierre

Have you ever examined how few concepts have true opposites? Except for the colors black and white, with the condition of ‘white’ being the reflection of all color and ‘black’ oppositely absorbing all color, I cannot think of any. Even our concept of the commonly accepted opposites of ‘up’ and ‘down’ is relative. In outer space, there’s no clarity of where ‘up’ or ‘down’ lie.
Yet, nowadays, there are some extremely loud people insisting that we consider most concepts and conditions as binary opposites:

If you question the rate or severity of Climate Change, you’re labeled as a Climate Change ‘denier’.
If you show concern about future unknown side effects or the efficacy of the mRNA ‘vaccines’, you’re an ‘anti-vaxxer’.
If you worry about the growing trend of impressionable children identifying as transgender, it’s suggested (by loudmouths) that you want to deny their existence… or even worse ‘hate’ them.
If you want a secure border, you’re either xenophobic or monstrously insensitive to the plight of migrants.

There are sadly too many more to list, but these are enough to give anyone with the capacity for reason pause.
I want to know why we allow these absurd reductive labels to occupy any adult conversation.

I regret having to say this but that intellectually lazy either/or ‘reasoning’ predominantly is coming from folks who claim to be the smartest and most tolerant. {News Flash- If you need to claim you’re smart and/or tolerant, you probably are neither in practice.}

We most likely can agree that words and phrases can have more than one definition. So, why are so many people defaulting to the idea that ALL “arguments” are something so negative that they need to be avoided? Are they ignorant of the courtroom definition of “A line of reasoning.”?
If Americans truly revere the “scientific method” as the ultimate formula for finding facts and approaching Truth, why is there so much effort being directed toward reducing speech and inquiry?
These are points and questions that I hope all well-meaning people will consider. This post consists of questions and hypotheses rather than statements for a reason. I’m offering an argument as “food for thought” and not at all trying to start an argument. 😉





Posted in Writing Prompts

Fandango’s Provocative Question: 7/29/21

Posted on by Susan St.Pierre
FPQ

Do you feel that people are more attracted to one another by their differences or by their commonalities? And why do you feel that way?

There are so many dynamics in this one! Bravo Fandango! For your provocative question and for drowning me in my own thought analysis. lol

The question specifically asks “attracted to” and I would say our differences offer the first allure because of curiosity and novelty.
I’ve noticed that many relationships are set up according to perceived strengths too. Each partner assumes ‘duties’ according to what he/she seems to be ‘good’ at. There are the finance managers, cooks, home maintenance, and scheduling managers, but also, there are the worriers, optimists, writers, decorators, and romantics. (To name only a few.) Interestingly, they don’t always fall along traditional gender lines either.

Yet, differences aren’t the ‘glue’ to relationship longevity. Similarities are. Specifically, those that encompass values, tradition, and goals. They don’t need to be identical, and rarely are, because every individual is a perfectly unique being BUT they have to be within the same ‘genre’. If one partner wants children and the other doesn’t or one partner envisions world travel as a goal and the other wants to homestead off of the grid, SORRY. Unless lightening strikes, somebody is going to be miserable!
Miserable is a condition more likely to land the relationship’s story on Investigation Discovery than the Hallmark Channel. 😀

I could go on but the last sentence seemed a perfect place to leave you. LOL

Fandango’s Provocative Question #128 – This, That, and The Other (fivedotoh.com)

Posted in Words 'n' such Poetry, Writing Prompts

d’Verse Poets Pub- Winter

Posted on by Susan St.Pierre

Winter is a silent mysterious stranger.
A man who knows nothing- but has shining eyes-
Crystals of frozen secrets.
He grasps where everything’s buried.

Tightly held in whirling frigid air
The colors he robs -in an icy fingered fist-
Cleverly purloined hues – one great pause.
No remorse in the conqueror.

Or perhaps, she’s a tender woman
Rocking her babes- against her bosom-
A dormant slumber- caressed by shushing breaths-
Bundled and held precious.

Soft lips blowing out the light.
Quieting the night- pristine whiteness-
Winter’s loving embrace -twinkling frosty hopes-
A guardian of her tomorrows.

He stands in the shadows.
She never speaks.
Both or neither,
It’s not for us to know.

Inspired by:
Wallace Stevens’ The Snow Man
Poetics: Beyond Meaning or The Resolution of Opposites | dVerse (dversepoets.com)

Posted in In my humble opinion..., Sideshows

Philosophically Speaking

Posted on by Susan St.Pierre

My Philosophy Bookshelf(top)
My Philosophy Bookshelf(top) (Photo credit: jddunn)

I find myself shaking my head in disbelief after many (mostly political) conversations that I often initiate on Facebook.

It comes from a received comment that is totally unrelated to my initially expressed idea… which leads to other unrelated comments and so on. Such is life on social media but I’ve been perplexed by why it happens so often?

Then I realized that my comments are from a philosophical consideration, while others, want to deal in “facts” and polls and, sometimes, rumors.

No one way is superior to the other but, put them together, and no one gets anywhere but confused…sometimes angry.

Those who deal in philosophical terms are dealing with concepts and beliefs. They realize that they simply don’t know everything, and, also believe, neither does anyone else. So, to the philosophical person, data is not a part of the discussion. It may be worthy of a power point presentation but simply offers nothing when discussing principles and reasoning itself.

I admit that I am numerically impaired. I try to remember exact numbers and statistics but I cannot.(besides, I don’t trust them)
Because of my impairment, I’m really not interested in that kind of discussion, anyway.
There seems to be folks who are my opposite. I call them Fact-focused. I’d say they are, sometimes, quite philosophically impaired. You can recognize them immediately. They have “facts” and stats and find their truth somewhere among them. I’d want those people doing my taxes but I get frustrated with them in any philosophical argument because they are not speaking a language germane to my subject.

Furthermore, a philosophical person primarily asks only one question… Why?
A Fact-focused person asks many…Where, When, and How many?

To cement my self-labeling as a philosophical thinker, a fact-focused person would not have needed to understand “Why, am I not being understood?” as I just have … but I suspect they are searching, at this same moment, through data and sharpening their information for their next battle of wits.  Problem is, we won’t be on the same planet when it occurs. Ugh!

Related articles