Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5471721" data-attributes="member: 59082">Olgar, I think that's a good way of putting it - the question about the &quot;Soul of D&amp;D&quot;, which is similar to what I was talking about in terms of the &quot;D&amp;D Experience,&quot; D&amp;D as an archetype, or what Mike Mearls spoke of as the &quot;core essence&quot; of D&amp;D. Pour, it is rare that people get that vindictive about the issue or express the view that &quot;Soul should only be achieved through their avenue and no other.&quot;Rather, I think a lot of the debate comes when people feel that someone else is telling them which avenues are valid, or whether or not their experience fits into this or that category. In other words, a lot of the strife comes not from people being offensive, but from people being defensive and assuming that others are attacking them or trying to &quot;fence them in.&quot; People don't like to be fenced in, for someone else to characterize or categorize them. The problem, though, is that this often prevents discussion beyond a certain point. It is like there's this wall that these sorts of opinionated conversations reach, a place where they invariably die through some variation of &quot;Different strokes&quot; or &quot;Let's agree to disagree&quot; or &quot;That's just your opinion, while I have mine.&quot; We could call this place the Cul-De-Sac of Universal Subjectivity. It has saved us from the Highway of Onetruewayism, but we tend to get stuck there because &quot;all views are equal&quot; and there are no higher, deeper truths possible in this sort of world except for, of course, the higher, deeper truths that I am in the know of and thus am not open to being wrong, or expanding or evolving my viewpoint, especially in relation to you.So we're left butting heads, our opinions impenetrable and unchanging. It is very rare, in my observation, for someone to actually change their viewpoint in the course of one of these sorts of debates. If anything people tend to just get more entrenched. Strangely enough, it is also usually the case that even in that entrenchment their view remains valid. Or, as I think Niels Bohr said, the opposite of a profound truth may very well be another profound truth. Sometimes the disagreement is just in the understanding, which is stalled by one or both parties trying to convince the other that their &quot;profound truth&quot; is lesser or wrong.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5471721, member: 59082"] Olgar, I think that's a good way of putting it - the question about the "Soul of D&D", which is similar to what I was talking about in terms of the "D&D Experience," D&D as an archetype, or what Mike Mearls spoke of as the "core essence" of D&D. Pour, it is rare that people get that vindictive about the issue or express the view that "Soul should only be achieved through their avenue and no other." Rather, I think a lot of the debate comes when people feel that someone else is telling them which avenues are valid, or whether or not their experience fits into this or that category. In other words, a lot of the strife comes not from people being offensive, but from people being defensive and assuming that others are attacking them or trying to "fence them in." People don't like to be fenced in, for someone else to characterize or categorize them. The problem, though, is that this often prevents discussion beyond a certain point. It is like there's this wall that these sorts of opinionated conversations reach, a place where they invariably die through some variation of "Different strokes" or "Let's agree to disagree" or "That's just your opinion, while I have mine." We could call this place the Cul-De-Sac of Universal Subjectivity. It has saved us from the Highway of Onetruewayism, but we tend to get stuck there because "all views are equal" and there are no higher, deeper truths possible in this sort of world except for, of course, the higher, deeper truths that [I]I [/I]am in the know of and thus am not open to being wrong, or expanding or evolving my viewpoint, especially in relation to [I]you.[/I] So we're left butting heads, our opinions impenetrable and unchanging. It is very rare, in my observation, for someone to actually change their viewpoint in the course of one of these sorts of debates. If anything people tend to just get more entrenched. Strangely enough, it is also usually the case that even in that entrenchment their view remains valid. Or, as I think Niels Bohr said, the opposite of a profound truth may very well be another profound truth. Sometimes the disagreement is just in the understanding, which is stalled by one or both parties trying to convince the other that [I]their [/I]"profound truth" is lesser or wrong. [/QUOTE]

Verification