I’m working on a much larger post[1] in which I discuss a concept I find very interesting: “the tension between truth-seeking and societal harmony”.
I state that “authentically expressing what you feel to be true creates tension if it doesn’t match societal norms”.
I believe we can build on this to answer:
Why does differing knowledge necessarily cause conflict?
If I have a basis of knowledge that causes me to believe idea X, and you have a basis of knowledge that causes you to believe alternative idea Y, then simply through our intrinsic goal to express ourselves authentically will tension (conflict) emerge.
Even if we are total pacifists, my intrinsic goal for there to be truth in the universe will clash with yours. As I’m listening to you express idea Y, I’ll be displeased[2] by the fact that your alternative truth is being expressed instead of my truth.
My writing tends towards that style which impacts its sharability/virality… unlike this post which is more bite-size. I’m actively working to figure out how I can maintain the longer style while making it accessible… possibly by making video versions of my writing.
This can be marginal, but I believe it is always non-zero. Even if I’m fully at peace with hearing contrasting opinions as I work to improve my world model, the extent to which I disagree will feed into my displeasure.
Thanks for your reply. I have some more questions.
I think the claim you make in this comment is that differences in [author’s definition] is sufficient to cause conflict. But I took your post to imply it was necessary.
But that’s not what you intended me to think? You’re thinking about a particular kind of conflict, not about humans generally hurting each other?
terminology: what is a “basis of knowledge”? Is it “things a person knows” or maybe “epistemics”?
How attached are you to the terminology you’re using? We have “map and territory” to discuss how people can disagree without having to say “alternative truth” (which smells). It almost seems like the conflicts you refer to are about map-territory confusion itself!
I think the claim you make in this comment is that differences in [author’s definition] is sufficient to cause conflict. But I took your post to imply it was necessary.
But that’s not what you intended me to think? You’re thinking about a particular kind of conflict, not about humans generally hurting each other?
I am saying that I think that conflict or tension is necessary in cases of differing knowledge, i.e it is always non-zero. I could have caused some confusion with my loose use of the word conflict.
When I said “Knowledge being a “tool of conflict” is a powerful concept”, here I was using (or more specifically interpreting from the Zhuangzi) conflict loosely to mean a non-zero amount of tension.
When I said “What else is a conflict if not some in-group fighting their out-group on a differing basis of knowledge?”, here I was implying conflict in the more specific case of a battle/clash… while not caring about the sleight-of-hand since I think it holds in the general case too.
terminology: what is a “basis of knowledge”? Is it “things a person knows” or maybe “epistemics”?
The former — I’m following its use in the Zhuangzi where “knowledge (zhī)” is distinct from “Virtue/agency (dé)” which is distinct from “mindset / mental framework (xīn)”. By “basis of knowledge” I mean a collection of things a person knows.
How attached are you to the terminology you’re using? We have “map and territory” to discuss how people can disagree without having to say “alternative truth” (which smells). It almost seems like the conflicts you refer to are about map-territory confusion itself!
Somewhat attached. I use world-model instead of map, and reality instead of territory. My “truth” is my expression of my world-model (map) to you through the lens of my self-model. I think your “alternative truth” is your expression of your world-model through the lens of your self-model.
This is intentionally relativistic — we both have our own idea of truth, and there also exists a separate objective truth.
I’m working on a much larger post[1] in which I discuss a concept I find very interesting: “the tension between truth-seeking and societal harmony”.
I state that “authentically expressing what you feel to be true creates tension if it doesn’t match societal norms”.
I believe we can build on this to answer:
If I have a basis of knowledge that causes me to believe idea X, and you have a basis of knowledge that causes you to believe alternative idea Y, then simply through our intrinsic goal to express ourselves authentically will tension (conflict) emerge.
Even if we are total pacifists, my intrinsic goal for there to be truth in the universe will clash with yours. As I’m listening to you express idea Y, I’ll be displeased[2] by the fact that your alternative truth is being expressed instead of my truth.
My writing tends towards that style which impacts its sharability/virality… unlike this post which is more bite-size. I’m actively working to figure out how I can maintain the longer style while making it accessible… possibly by making video versions of my writing.
This can be marginal, but I believe it is always non-zero. Even if I’m fully at peace with hearing contrasting opinions as I work to improve my world model, the extent to which I disagree will feed into my displeasure.
Thanks for your reply. I have some more questions.
I think the claim you make in this comment is that differences in [author’s definition] is sufficient to cause conflict. But I took your post to imply it was necessary.
But that’s not what you intended me to think? You’re thinking about a particular kind of conflict, not about humans generally hurting each other?
terminology: what is a “basis of knowledge”? Is it “things a person knows” or maybe “epistemics”?
How attached are you to the terminology you’re using? We have “map and territory” to discuss how people can disagree without having to say “alternative truth” (which smells). It almost seems like the conflicts you refer to are about map-territory confusion itself!
I am saying that I think that conflict or tension is necessary in cases of differing knowledge, i.e it is always non-zero. I could have caused some confusion with my loose use of the word conflict.
When I said “Knowledge being a “tool of conflict” is a powerful concept”, here I was using (or more specifically interpreting from the Zhuangzi) conflict loosely to mean a non-zero amount of tension.
When I said “What else is a conflict if not some in-group fighting their out-group on a differing basis of knowledge?”, here I was implying conflict in the more specific case of a battle/clash… while not caring about the sleight-of-hand since I think it holds in the general case too.
The former — I’m following its use in the Zhuangzi where “knowledge (zhī)” is distinct from “Virtue/agency (dé)” which is distinct from “mindset / mental framework (xīn)”. By “basis of knowledge” I mean a collection of things a person knows.
Somewhat attached. I use world-model instead of map, and reality instead of territory. My “truth” is my expression of my world-model (map) to you through the lens of my self-model. I think your “alternative truth” is your expression of your world-model through the lens of your self-model.
This is intentionally relativistic — we both have our own idea of truth, and there also exists a separate objective truth.
Thanks for clarifying! that terminology seems clear now I’ve seen it spelled out