Adventure Forums - View Single Post

Simo Sakari Aaltonen · 12-12-2006, 10:37 PM

Nemel, I don't have the energy to address every misinterpretation regarding my views, so will have to confine myself to addressing only one:

And, assuming the concept WAS western in origin, why is that necessarily a negative thing?

If you reread what I wrote, you will see that I did not anywhere imply that the concept was a negative thing because of its origin in the west. So this is just a straw man.

I was not clear enough about this earlier*: I mean a particular conception of conflict, not everything that anyone would ever describe as conflict. This particular conception usually involves a certain element of psychodrama, which goes hand in hand with the idea of identification, and the conflict is usually violent in nature.

*though thought it was implicit and tried to say with "Conflict is conflict only if it is perceived as such."

I know many people would call two non-identical desires presented in drama conflict. But this is the western prejudice that sees conflict where only life in all its multiplicity is present. It is only a particular worldview and only one way of seeing things. It comes about because of the underlying dualist assumption according to which everything comes down to negative and positive, or male and female, or our side and their side, and so on.

It is the narrow-mindedness I was referring to, an impoverished conception of drama or storytelling that tries to reduce everything to dualist terms. There are other worldviews where none of the issues, desires, or relationships presented are viewed as conflicts.

They can be seen as interaction, or the dance of life, or meaningless chaos, or a single system in operation. Are your blood vessels and veins in conflict because they need different things? This is not semantics, unless the very nature of how someone experiences the world is semantics. Life is not just this or that or even the other, it is many things.

I know I expressed these thoughts poorly. That's okay, though. I'm not looking to change anyone's views and honestly, I don't have the stamina to go into the issues further now, even if this were the place for it.

Simo Sakari Aaltonen
(simo adventurecompanion.com)

www.adventurecompanion.com

12-12-2006, 10:37 PM	#42
Simo Sakari Aaltonen Banned User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 447	Nemel, I don't have the energy to address every misinterpretation regarding my views, so will have to confine myself to addressing only one: And, assuming the concept WAS western in origin, why is that necessarily a negative thing? If you reread what I wrote, you will see that I did not anywhere imply that the concept was a negative thing because of its origin in the west. So this is just a straw man. I was not clear enough about this earlier: I mean a particular conception of conflict, not everything that anyone would ever describe as conflict. This particular conception usually involves a certain element of psychodrama, which goes hand in hand with the idea of identification, and the conflict is usually violent in nature. though thought it was implicit and tried to say with "Conflict is conflict only if it is perceived as such." I know many people would call two non-identical desires presented in drama conflict. But this is the western prejudice that sees conflict where only life in all its multiplicity is present. It is only a particular worldview and only one way of seeing things. It comes about because of the underlying dualist assumption according to which everything comes down to negative and positive, or male and female, or our side and their side, and so on. It is the narrow-mindedness I was referring to, an impoverished conception of drama or storytelling that tries to reduce everything to dualist terms. There are other worldviews where none of the issues, desires, or relationships presented are viewed as conflicts. They can be seen as interaction, or the dance of life, or meaningless chaos, or a single system in operation. Are your blood vessels and veins in conflict because they need different things? This is not semantics, unless the very nature of how someone experiences the world is semantics. Life is not just this or that or even the other, it is many things. I know I expressed these thoughts poorly. That's okay, though. I'm not looking to change anyone's views and honestly, I don't have the stamina to go into the issues further now, even if this were the place for it. Simo Sakari Aaltonen (simo adventurecompanion.com) www.adventurecompanion.com Last edited by Simo Sakari Aaltonen; 12-12-2006 at 10:53 PM. Reason: Clarity.