~~ i beg to disagree.
May. 20th, 2003 05:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkai know this is human nature, but i still think it's ironic. i've often wondered at how the most important revelations seem to be things we feel like we've always known. this is almost contradictory, isn't it, 'cause if we'd always known them, then why do we need a "revelation"? of course, self-knowledge is a huge goal all in itself, but you'd think revelation would have to involve some sort of greater knowledge, something outside you as an individual.
but i actually usually find it beautiful, ever since death (in the sandman) said that everyone already knows everything there is to know, but the forgetting is all that makes it okay sometimes.
but the thing that bothers me is a somewhat different aspect. why is it always that anytime someone expresses admiration or excitement about what someone else had said, it's because that person is basically saying something they agree with? the world is so full of yes-men, and god it's sickening.
the people that are most commonly disliked are usually ones that one disagrees with. and all these social ties form from this idea of agreement or disagreement. i agree, thus i like you. i disagree, thus you piss me off.
on the one hand, it's inescapable:
seeing something that one wholeheartedly agrees with is just an intensely pleasurable thing. that feeling of "YES!! i am not alone!". that's just, priceless. that rush of warmth, that thick, gooey feeling of kinship. kinship is one of the most precious things in life, the basis of human bonding, really.
on the other hand, intellectually, using kinship alone for revelation and opinion-making bothers me.
there is a beauty in all sorts of convictions, merely in their construction and the patterns behind them. there are so many different things i myself can empathize with without -being- them. that's just so natural for me that it always startles me that people limit themselves in terms of what range of conviction they empathize with.
there is definitely a line between realizing one is -like- another person, and just creating this sort of cirle of mutual back-patting which is contrary to real intellectual stimulation.
i myself enjoy people disagreeing with me perhaps moreso than people agreeing with me. i love the sudden shock of realizing that a point of view i hadn't considered at all, ever, suddenly makes sense to me. i love being convinced, even for a moment, by the power of superior argument.
for instance, everyone who knows me knows i ship harry/draco with all the rabid heat of a thousand suns. and i do love pro-h/d rants and essays and they make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. but i equally love anti-h/d rants and essays, and they make me tingly and excited, too.
there is just that wonderful, unmistakeable pleasure of a challenge. there are so many differently-minded people in the world, and a largish number of them are brilliant, absolutely brilliant. and i think that's where the most real, intense revelations come from-- from listening to the "other side", from letting go of ego and actually trying to understand all the things that are unnatural.
i love putting opposites together in romance probably at least partly because i love putting them together in my head. the sad thing is, i just don't see it very often. people get so -upset- with people they don't agree with. like these opinions are an affront, because they're just -wrong-. sitting there, in their castle of rightness, the whole world fades away, and it's easy to pretend that this way is the only way.
this extends to fics, too. people won't say anything unless it's something that -agrees- with the presumed opinion of the author that this is worthwhile, this is a good fic. and what if my opinion is that my fic sucks? no, you will then argue with me (the people who say anything at all, and if they're not really my closer friends who know me, anyway) because the -ideal- is to promote the positivism, spread the love and so on.
this is, of course, tinted by the fact that i am contrary by nature. wide-ranging agreement in general does not sit well with me. people who disagree with whatever dominant paradigm get my admiration and love-- and not even because i agree with them. they think for themselves, and how can i not love that? because by doing this, they force -me- to think for myself. this inspiration for thinking is a gift.
it is in this way that i find myself liking most people who're widely hated and also widely adored. they tend to have a strong persona, a strong individuality which is unique and not particularly in agreement with anything, it just -is-.
how can i not love h/d? my god, it's just brilliant. apparently, people either love it or hate it with the fire of a thousand suns. most people seem to either think it's impossible or "meant to be". either it's the One True Way or it's the Devil's Way. ahahah. gotta love that!
the thing is, i think being either one way or the other is very limiting. i mean, it's cool to be pragmatic and cynical-- and it's cool to be idealistic and romantic. but it's coolest to be able to understand both, to be able to gain something from every perspective, to be able to transcend this tiny little thing called a pairing and your own emotions regarding it and to see what the others see without having to either agree or disagree.
it bothers me that this could seem like the ultimate relativism. opinions are great things. but that particular practice of aligning yourself based on agreement-- taking agreement to be more important than actual independent thought by implication-- that's kind of disturbing.
and obviously, i'm not saying agreeing is a Bad Thing all by itself. certainly, i myself am happy as a clam when i realize i share mental kinship with someone i admire. i just wish i saw, "i disagree, but i think you're brilliant" more often in my observations of people. or at least i wish that it didn't seem that people's estimate of others' brilliance didn't seem to be based on how closely their views matched up. like, "wow, you're so brilliant! look, you THINK JUST LIKE ME!!!" *shudders*
in my ideal world. there would be no such thing as -true-, full agreement (where every aspect of the idea would actually match), and people would realize it, but it wouldn't matter. they wouldn't cling to the little bits that -do- match as if they're precious grains of gold. there would be dialogue instead of group monologue. wah, revolution!! no such thing as parties, only such a thing as individuals with ideas!
i love multiplicity, obviously. i love the differences between things, between people. as much as i crave to meet and be with people i feel i'm -like-, if they were too like me i'd go insane. and yes, okay, i don't have the greatest of respect for a lot of people with certain opinions, but it's not their opinions, it's the way they go about expressing them-- and okay, just, none of them had expressed them in a way that swayed me as of yet. but i -want- to be. i want to be swayed! i want to like snape/draco or whatever evil thing! (*laughs*)
anyway. yet another day, yet another ramble. i think i'll go get some tea now -.-
~~
EDIT - i've read 12 out of the bbc's 100 books list, and am not likely to voluntarily read any others. ha. considering that list is just what's -commonly read-, not what's worthwhile, i'm okay. plus, i don't care what's worthwhile. 90% of what i read since age 13 has been obscure fantasy and some sci-fi, and i don't care.
why am i so easily annoyed??! because gahd, i'm so. easily. annoyed. gah.
but i actually usually find it beautiful, ever since death (in the sandman) said that everyone already knows everything there is to know, but the forgetting is all that makes it okay sometimes.
but the thing that bothers me is a somewhat different aspect. why is it always that anytime someone expresses admiration or excitement about what someone else had said, it's because that person is basically saying something they agree with? the world is so full of yes-men, and god it's sickening.
the people that are most commonly disliked are usually ones that one disagrees with. and all these social ties form from this idea of agreement or disagreement. i agree, thus i like you. i disagree, thus you piss me off.
on the one hand, it's inescapable:
seeing something that one wholeheartedly agrees with is just an intensely pleasurable thing. that feeling of "YES!! i am not alone!". that's just, priceless. that rush of warmth, that thick, gooey feeling of kinship. kinship is one of the most precious things in life, the basis of human bonding, really.
on the other hand, intellectually, using kinship alone for revelation and opinion-making bothers me.
there is a beauty in all sorts of convictions, merely in their construction and the patterns behind them. there are so many different things i myself can empathize with without -being- them. that's just so natural for me that it always startles me that people limit themselves in terms of what range of conviction they empathize with.
there is definitely a line between realizing one is -like- another person, and just creating this sort of cirle of mutual back-patting which is contrary to real intellectual stimulation.
i myself enjoy people disagreeing with me perhaps moreso than people agreeing with me. i love the sudden shock of realizing that a point of view i hadn't considered at all, ever, suddenly makes sense to me. i love being convinced, even for a moment, by the power of superior argument.
for instance, everyone who knows me knows i ship harry/draco with all the rabid heat of a thousand suns. and i do love pro-h/d rants and essays and they make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. but i equally love anti-h/d rants and essays, and they make me tingly and excited, too.
there is just that wonderful, unmistakeable pleasure of a challenge. there are so many differently-minded people in the world, and a largish number of them are brilliant, absolutely brilliant. and i think that's where the most real, intense revelations come from-- from listening to the "other side", from letting go of ego and actually trying to understand all the things that are unnatural.
i love putting opposites together in romance probably at least partly because i love putting them together in my head. the sad thing is, i just don't see it very often. people get so -upset- with people they don't agree with. like these opinions are an affront, because they're just -wrong-. sitting there, in their castle of rightness, the whole world fades away, and it's easy to pretend that this way is the only way.
this extends to fics, too. people won't say anything unless it's something that -agrees- with the presumed opinion of the author that this is worthwhile, this is a good fic. and what if my opinion is that my fic sucks? no, you will then argue with me (the people who say anything at all, and if they're not really my closer friends who know me, anyway) because the -ideal- is to promote the positivism, spread the love and so on.
this is, of course, tinted by the fact that i am contrary by nature. wide-ranging agreement in general does not sit well with me. people who disagree with whatever dominant paradigm get my admiration and love-- and not even because i agree with them. they think for themselves, and how can i not love that? because by doing this, they force -me- to think for myself. this inspiration for thinking is a gift.
it is in this way that i find myself liking most people who're widely hated and also widely adored. they tend to have a strong persona, a strong individuality which is unique and not particularly in agreement with anything, it just -is-.
how can i not love h/d? my god, it's just brilliant. apparently, people either love it or hate it with the fire of a thousand suns. most people seem to either think it's impossible or "meant to be". either it's the One True Way or it's the Devil's Way. ahahah. gotta love that!
the thing is, i think being either one way or the other is very limiting. i mean, it's cool to be pragmatic and cynical-- and it's cool to be idealistic and romantic. but it's coolest to be able to understand both, to be able to gain something from every perspective, to be able to transcend this tiny little thing called a pairing and your own emotions regarding it and to see what the others see without having to either agree or disagree.
it bothers me that this could seem like the ultimate relativism. opinions are great things. but that particular practice of aligning yourself based on agreement-- taking agreement to be more important than actual independent thought by implication-- that's kind of disturbing.
and obviously, i'm not saying agreeing is a Bad Thing all by itself. certainly, i myself am happy as a clam when i realize i share mental kinship with someone i admire. i just wish i saw, "i disagree, but i think you're brilliant" more often in my observations of people. or at least i wish that it didn't seem that people's estimate of others' brilliance didn't seem to be based on how closely their views matched up. like, "wow, you're so brilliant! look, you THINK JUST LIKE ME!!!" *shudders*
in my ideal world. there would be no such thing as -true-, full agreement (where every aspect of the idea would actually match), and people would realize it, but it wouldn't matter. they wouldn't cling to the little bits that -do- match as if they're precious grains of gold. there would be dialogue instead of group monologue. wah, revolution!! no such thing as parties, only such a thing as individuals with ideas!
i love multiplicity, obviously. i love the differences between things, between people. as much as i crave to meet and be with people i feel i'm -like-, if they were too like me i'd go insane. and yes, okay, i don't have the greatest of respect for a lot of people with certain opinions, but it's not their opinions, it's the way they go about expressing them-- and okay, just, none of them had expressed them in a way that swayed me as of yet. but i -want- to be. i want to be swayed! i want to like snape/draco or whatever evil thing! (*laughs*)
anyway. yet another day, yet another ramble. i think i'll go get some tea now -.-
~~
EDIT - i've read 12 out of the bbc's 100 books list, and am not likely to voluntarily read any others. ha. considering that list is just what's -commonly read-, not what's worthwhile, i'm okay. plus, i don't care what's worthwhile. 90% of what i read since age 13 has been obscure fantasy and some sci-fi, and i don't care.
why am i so easily annoyed??! because gahd, i'm so. easily. annoyed. gah.
