Recently I wrote an entry entitled of “Fear or Faith?” I had seen a picture of one of the boards that I needed to replace which was rotten and cracked. At the moment I stepped down into the hole that was the entrance to the crawl space, I had a sudden jolt of panic. I have worked in very tight crawl spaces in the past, and when I was young I used to spelunk.
At the moment of panic, the man I was working for was surprised and reminded me of a long past adventure that I had told him about years ago. On an underground adventure I explored a set of side passages off of the main entrance room of the cave. My partner, in years to come a MAF pilot, decided that the entrance to the passage looked too small. It turned out that was not the problem. Unlike the rest of the cave which was mostly one room about the size of a three car garage, these small passages were a labyrinth of parallel and perpendicular passages. After a time, I had exhausted the directions I seemed to be able to go and my interest in them. I began to attempt to retrace my course to the exit, but could not remember the route or gain the entrance. I periodically had been conversing with my friend about what I was finding. Now I told him that I was confused and that he should keep talking so that I could come to his voice. One or two turns of crawling and I could see the light of his headlamp. It was at this moment that we both realized that there was more than one entrance to this labyrinth and that I had come to a different one. The second discovery was more disconcerting. The opening looked too small for my slight 150 lbs to shinny through. He told me to go to the other entrance. I replied that I had no idea how to get there. So, I put my arms above my head and acted like a worm. I discovered something else about myself. At this juncture in my life, my hips were a larger circumference than my chest. My hips became stuck. In this position I could neither move forward nor backwards. I began to breathe faster. My friend and I both knew that panic would only cause my body to swell. He talked me down and began pulling the pants and my flesh through the hole. It was for me a tense several minutes. The entrance was only feet away and sunlight never seemed so warm and inviting.*
So, my recent below floor crawl fest was not exceptional in some respects, but it was tight and there was potential for harm. I had to dig out a place for my shoulders and hips so that I could turn on my side to work. I successfully corrected the floor problem and was able to jack it to within 1/4″ on 4′ from level. The floor resisted any further leveling and closing of the gap between counter and tile on the wall. I think that it was because the wall was rising with the floor. Being a two story house, that quickly maxed out the two car jacks I was using. To see how tight the space was click on “Tight“.
I am so, so thankful for God’s mercies in various kinds of tight places. He gives me peace in the midst of panic, security in shocking situations, and direction in desperate need.
- There, I told you. I have told very few people that story in full until now.
CreatorWorship 
Basis of Civil Debate
Posted in Change, Civil Debate, Cultural commentary, Fears, General, Implications, Respect, Society, tagged Being heard, Civil Debate, Discussion, Fear, Open-mindedness, Respect on June 2, 2020| 2 Comments »
What is the way forward for our country in this time of crisis?
Awhile back I was having a discussion with two people, who we will call Mr. L and Mr. S, that turned into an argument. They were on one side of a position and I was on the other. I do not like to get drawn into arguments for reasons far deeper than the immediate discomfort, but I dislike even more when truth is being trampled. Well, from my perspective, things got worse, because I was no longer concerned about the statements being made. I agreed in principle with them, but I did not like the fact that I was never heard. Mr. L and Mr. S would tell you that they fully understood me and could see that I was patently wrong, but that is simply not true. The evidence I would give is that I was never allowed to state my point, so that I was never truly heard, and therefore, they could not have known if I was wrong or not.
And this is the reason for this blog entry*. The basis for civil debate is the requirement that the views of the parties** in the debate be heard, truly heard. If not, there has not been debate, but there has been monologue, haranguing, putdown, and dismissal. This does not mean that the two or more parties must come to agreement, though that would be a further needed step for legislative progress. But they must hear each other in such a way as to believe that the other party, at the very least, thinks that their position is reasonable. The end result will be some change in all of the parties. They will have seen, I mean really seen, that is heard, another perspective. The result may well be that they have more evidence for why they don’t agree, but it might also mean that they come to see a reason to modify their own position, even if ever so slightly.
This basic tenet of civil debate and discourse has another underlying prerequisite. In order to really hear someone, you must have some minimal respect for that person or party. When that is lacking then the monologue and so forth commences. I highly suspect from watching this scenario play out numerous times and being party to this mis-step myself, that the reason for the lack of respect, and therefore lack of listening, is essentially fear. If you believe that the other party holds some wicked position or intention that will undermine your worldview, status quo, or comfort, you are apt to attack it vociferously. But if you are confident that the truth will win out, either in the short-term or long-term, you may feel at ease enough to hear the other party out for the purpose of learning or modifying your own position.
Take note that those who least hold to what is true most vehemently avoid listening to their opponents. And be doubly aware of those who feign listening but never really hear what their opponents say.
What I have essentially just defined is open-mindedness. Some who claim to be the most open-minded, the kind who will not hold to one or any particular point of view, listen the least and are the most closed-minded. Why? Frequently they are unwilling to commit to a position, not because they don’t know (agnostic), but because they don’t want to know (stubborn). Other people wear closed-mindedness as a badge, thinking that they uphold the “real” truth. Their fear of straying from their understanding of the truth causes them to cling to a shallow truth at best. These two problems reign on both extremes of political and belief perspectives and in the middle as well. In reality, their close-mindedness is of no value to anyone, including themselves. And I do not ascribe to the definition of open-mindedness that believes that there is no truth, and therefore everyone has their own truth. That is counter to Western thought, logic, and any view of the society that works.***
A listening ear is not a rejection of truth, but a confidence that there is truth and that it appears in surprising places and can instruct and benefit the hearer from wherever or whomever it comes, and that it will win out in the end.
In summary, here are the points I made: 1) Civil Debate requires that all invested parties are really heard. 2) Really hearing someone requires a little respect for the person, even if not for their position, 3) Lack of kindly respect for your debate opponent points to fear that your position might be overcome, and 4) Open-mindedness is good and beneficial for debate.
I hope that you have heard me and benefited.
*What happened to Mr.s L and S? Stay tuned. That description will come soon, but I do not want to distract from my main point.
**Modern liberal thought that absent parties must be in the debate don’t work since that means that people no longer alive, non-citizens, non-vested interests, and others not party to the debate run the debate. Equity is not that non-parties to the debate rule the debate, but that they be allowed to become parties to the debate through involvement in the process and vested interest in the debate. That involves allowance to include other parties and commitment on the part of all parties to be involved and invested. Certain parties cannot be allowed into the conversation, because their purpose and presence is disruptive.
*** Why society without truth will not work is a topic for another day, but a worthy one.
Read Full Post »