Today the American Steward blog will begin, even if only at a crawling pace. Here I will develop and share my thoughts about being a steward of something and then extend these thoughts to the idea of being an American Steward.
I will share layers and steps designed to illustrate my own thinking and its basis; i.e. not designed to change your thinking.
I find that confusion over "worldview" or "basis" or "framework" is the culprit in fueling many useless arguments over second things.
Here at American Steward we want to rummage around amongst the finest ideas and seek understanding. When considering an idea, in order to communicate effectively, we will make an effort to define clear categories and illustrate our best estimate of a valid "stepping on" point along the pathway of ideas.
One should know the other man's worldview before criticizing his arguments and conclusions. Otherwise the discussion is futile because fundamental differences in worldview (the fork in the path) are distorting the arguments while the fundamentals are never being discussed.
If one is to debate with any wisdom, the exchange must be framed in the context of the worldview which is pressing a given point. If A wants to show the error in B's argument, A should argue in the context of B's worldview, not A's. When A then offers a positive idea as being the correct view, the presentation should be in the context of A's worldview.
I hope this provides a hint as to the style of communication that will be pursued here.
There is much to say, but this has to do for our first American Steward blog post.
I will share layers and steps designed to illustrate my own thinking and its basis; i.e. not designed to change your thinking.
I find that confusion over "worldview" or "basis" or "framework" is the culprit in fueling many useless arguments over second things.
Here at American Steward we want to rummage around amongst the finest ideas and seek understanding. When considering an idea, in order to communicate effectively, we will make an effort to define clear categories and illustrate our best estimate of a valid "stepping on" point along the pathway of ideas.
One should know the other man's worldview before criticizing his arguments and conclusions. Otherwise the discussion is futile because fundamental differences in worldview (the fork in the path) are distorting the arguments while the fundamentals are never being discussed.
If one is to debate with any wisdom, the exchange must be framed in the context of the worldview which is pressing a given point. If A wants to show the error in B's argument, A should argue in the context of B's worldview, not A's. When A then offers a positive idea as being the correct view, the presentation should be in the context of A's worldview.
I hope this provides a hint as to the style of communication that will be pursued here.
There is much to say, but this has to do for our first American Steward blog post.
