K. WHEN DIALOGUE ISN'T POSSIBLE

If it's true that no one, including ourselves, has a corner on the whole Truth and if it's true that we won't learn as much just talking with people who think as we do, as from those who think differently from ourselves, and if it's true that dialogue is a useful strategy for persons wanting, not so much to win an  argument, as to learn from each other, what do you do with someone who isn't interested in dialogue, but only in argument?  Especially if they're persuaded that they do have the whole truth? There are such people.

"Thinking Man", by Tim Holmes

They are very much like the mental patient I heard of who was  hospitalized  because of his firm conviction that he was a corpse.  A young ward attendant who didn't know much about mental illness, thought he could "reason" the patient out of such an untenable position.  "So you think you are a corpse?" "Yes," replied the patient. "Corpses don't bleed do they?" asked the attendant, sure that he was on a logical path toward rectifying the patient's misperception.  "No," replied the patient.  "Of course corpses don't bleed."  "Then watch this," said the attendant, taking a needle from his uniform and pricking the end of the patient's finger.  It bled of course and the patient looked at his bleeding finger with a most amazed expression.  "Well, what do you know," he said.  "Corpses do bleed!"

There are people who take the position that a famous sign expresses:  "My mind is already made up; don't confuse me with the facts."  Efforts at dialogue probably won't work with them.  Their commitment to their point of view is stronger than their commitment to open exploration of the truth.  So what do you do then?  In the story above I used the image of a mental patient.  This doesn't mean that all people who are locked into their present point of view are mentally ill.  We all get "locked in" from time to time.  I may say, in my effort to get the other to see it my way, that "I am committed. You are stubborn."  But the difference may be fuzzy.

It's important to remember that the fact that two people may have entirely different viewpoints about an issue isn't necessarily a matter of a difference in intelligence or even in degree of compassion.  Two caring and intelligent people can think differently about any number of things and the difference may be primarily due to a difference of experience.  I'm told that a British member of Parliament by the name of John Wheatley early in the twentieth century, a chronic protester against laws that made for unnecessary human suffering, was talking once to King George V.  The king asked him why he was so violent an agitator.  Wheatley simply told him about the slums of which he knew a great deal and about the life of the people who were poor and unemployed and hungry and sick.  And when he had finished the king said quietly, "If I had seen what you have seen, I too would be a revolutionary."

What we have seen, what we have experienced–– which includes what we have read and been told–– combine to cultivate different  perspectives between people who may be clear-thinking, educated and compassionate.  Hence the wisdom of the old Indian proverb:

"Do not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins."

One implication of this fact is that we do well in our search for Truth to expand our experience, including our reading, and encourage others to do the same.  Of course, some people are not willing to do that, which fact is the origin of the old saw, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."  You can lead a person to new truths, but you cannot make him think.

It must be added that there is an element of validity to the "mental patient" image in the sense that when we are "locked into" (call it "committed to" if you wish) a point of view and intransigent about facing the possibility that I may not be entirely right in my opinion, there is an element of mental or emotional stress involved–– not enough to commit us to an institution, but enough to close us off from fresh illumination.  That mental or emotional distress may exist for a number of reasons.  One is that to be shown that we might not have the whole truth or be entirely right becomes a personal threat to our self-image, the threat of being shown to be uninformed or even stupid.  Thus defending oneself becomes more important than  perceiving the Truth.  Or holding tenaciously to our traditional point of view may be a matter of loyalty to the person or family or group or tradition that originally gave you this point of view.  To change your mind may feel like a kind of betrayal.

So one's mental health plays a certain role in the pursuit of Truth.  The completely healthy person emotionally will not be threatened by having to acknowledge that another point of view is as true or truer than his own.  To be shown to be wrong is not to be shown to be stupid.  In fact, to change one's mind may be a sign of growth. Mahatma Gandhi was once criticized by the press for changing his mind on an  important issue and was asked by a reporter why he had been so inconsistent, to which he replied, "I learned something I hadn't known before." 

So here's a strong plea for openness.  My objective in writing these pages is not to persuade you to think exactly as I do about everything, but to challenge you to do your own thinking on the basis of your increased knowledge, including your self-knowledge. Let the thinking and experiences of others be helpful as far as they can be and then formulate your own perception, tentative and open to revision as it may be, and indeed should be.

NEXT TIME:  RELATIVISM ISN'T A NAUGHTY WORD

TOOLS AND APPROACHES - K