Here's the trail that we trekked to get here:
https://steemit.com/steemstem/@rortian/to-steemstem-or-not-to-steemstem-who-defines-science
https://steemit.com/higherorderthinking/@yvesoler/want-to-be-a-part-of-a-community-discussion
https://steemit.com/higherorderthinking/@rortian/community-discussion-continued
https://steemit.com/higherorderthinking/@rortian/community-discussion-in-progress
Nice start, Tigrilla!
Is there space for critical thinking without judgement?
Well, that depends on where one looks, doesn't it?
I'm working on that. I've declared myself a judgment-free zone. By this I mean that I don't believe my that mind-chatter is, or could be, true. So whenever my humanity starts whispering bad thoughts about people, I prefer to refrain from uttering them.
How have I done so far?
"There is a little, itty-bitty part of me that worries that this is all a farce and in the end you will reveal that the whole experience was an experiment with me as the mouse. But that is the fear talking again. :p"
Well, that's not the best character reference I've ever received, but I interpret it as an admission that you've mostly changed your mind; please correct me if I'm mistaken.
"I feel like our interactions have built a good level of trust"
Oh. That's pretty good!
I'd say that you built your trust by keeping your mind open and participating in a progressive dialogue - which is one where one's opinion afterward is different from before the interaction. Would you agree with that re-formulation? It places the responsibility for your results where it belongs: imo you did that! You caused it.
Moving on...
"I am feeling overwhelmed...You keep asking me if I read your 85 page ebook when I keep telling you I am overwhelmed by the amount of data coming in."
I understand and I've apologized for doing too much too quickly. I regret the effects of my insensitivity.
And I didn't realize that I asked that more than once. That was silly of me.
And of course I affirm my belief that you ought to do what you think is important for you.
" I would also like to have meaningful conversations with a greater audience."
Well, who wouldn't?
I do. Your question at the tells me that you want us to work on that.
See below.
"we shouldn't compare, but I can't help but"
compare! I know! That's the human mind at work. Imo we can't control our cognitive (or emotional) functionalities - we can't steer them like a car, or change them like we can edit what we wrote. We can plant seeds (insights) that eventually result in alterations of our cognitive spaces and emotional spaces, nurture them (like we're doing now) and see what they'll sprout into. Learning is a lifelong process for some of us; we've managed so far to plant few seeds.
I believe that the best we can do about our bad thoughts and feelings is accept them (rather than resisting and repressing them, which results in intrapersonal conflict.)
I'll blog about that (If all goes well).
"Without the filters, the richness of the exchange is enhanced, which allows for a greater absorption of knowledge. Is this what is meant by "learning"?"
Hmmm. Interesting.
Well, please remember that I don't believe that there's only one correct meaning for any abstraction, and defining ideas isn't my favorite thing to do. My experience says that there are probably various definitions of what 'learning' is, but I wouldn't advise believing definitions. We can use them without believing that they're true.
On the other hand, dropping the filters (being willing to alter our historical ideas) is clearly important to the learning process. I'd say that opening our minds in that way facilitates learning.
Children do it more often than we do, right?
"How does one person create a safe space in a written environment that leads to open discussions on topics that are outside of the desired audience’s comfort zone?"
Well, this one is a soft ball. Easy:
How could "one" person do that? It takes at least two, doesn't it?
And my opinion is that you nailed that in your opening post on this discussion:
" choose to have a completely open conversation..."
You're doing it; I'm doing it; that's two and this seems to me to be useful. That's my simplistic view.
Of course, practice is not theory, it's different, and practice (imo) is only tangentially related to theory. (Too bad, right?) Theories are relatively simple and they're quite abstract - practice (in theory) is very complex and not at all abstract! That's how I apply the aspect of complexity: theories are simple, practice isn't.
IMO!
And now - the hard part:
"What are the elements of a public discussion with multiple points of views that encourage trust and listening while leaving out judgment and fear in order to ultimately arrive at learning?"
That's what we've been working on up to now isn't it? You've restated the issue that I've been concerned about since I arrived.
I wish that I could formulate a true answer. Don't you?
I'm no expert at that!!!
I'd suggest that we consult with people:
If anybody is out there, and you have a good idea, would you please be kind enough to share it with us? Please?
How's that? (Did it work?)
WelI, ok, so I asked Google to search for this:
"promoting participation in online discussions"
2,730,000 results in .53 seconds.
Hmmmm. And you thought you were overwhelmed!
Unfortunately none of the studies contains true answers. Recommendations for practices come from theories - but who has the best theory on this??
Well, there's no way to tell that either.
I think that the best that we could do is:
" choose to have a completely open conversation..."
!
I think that if we're not afraid of what we're doing or of what might happen then we're doing very well and we'll produce excellent results.
We're doing something useful, I believe. If I'm correct, others will notice and chime in (if they're wise enough and courageous enough to do what were doing).
I've done this elsewhere, with amazing results.
I suggest that we cultivate patience (one of my biggest difficulties!) and continue our work; then we'll see what will happen.
To me engaging in a progressive dialogue is like a pair of singers arranging a duet.
The song is about the lyrics and the notes, but creating an excellent performance requires that each participant commit to working as a team: cooperation is essential, so is caring about one's partner's music as well as one's own, trying out different ideas (testing possibilities for reaching new musical heights), and a lot of practice. Trust is also involved.
Does this analogy make much sense to you?
To extend it, we've been testing out a bunch of different songs. So far we've worked to learn to cooperate, to trust, and to sing a few notes together. We could probably improve a lot, I think.
Now:
Do you still want to learn philosophy, Tigrilla?
[wondering]
