As a function of social warmth, you can sort of see why one person might seek to convince another. But then there are those who insist that if you are not convinced, you are somehow an enemy either to them or to the vast truth they insist on purveying. If they can convince others, then, somehow, their own conviction gains stature and force in their own mind: "I think" may be a bit wobbly and lacking in force, but if "we think" (a dubious proposition from the get-go), suddenly the idea is in fact correct and everyone can relax because "everyone knows."
What is the matter with being content to have personal convictions and let it go at that? What is the matter with examining and testing and then deciding, "well, it may not be perfect, but it makes the best sense I can find?"
I was watching Bill Moyers interview Karl Marlantes last night and one of the things I found most attractive about Marlantes was that he seemed unconcerned whether Moyers or anyone else agreed with him. He stated his truth as he knew it and it wasn't as if he were speaking from some structurally-reinforced silo of conviction: He was willing to discuss and revise, but, for the moment, this is where he stood and others were free to think what they thought. Most tellingly, he seemed aware that his views were his views and others might be more interested in the composition of a ham sandwich. "Importance" and "meaning" were not his decision.
It seems to take some kind of courage to examine my own experience and subsequent convictions and stop messing around trying to convince others ... state a position, sure, but stop playing the beggar who cannot put one foot in front of the other without consensus and applause. What the hell -- it's just an opinion.
Offer ... don't beg.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment