The challenge of speaking (or writing) in plain spoken unbiased language that is not partisan or bias directed, without ambiguity, is the only way to be understood on controversial issues. Ideally we shouldn't need prefaces to predicate opinions that are on normal socially acceptable differences.
A rare comment from a wise but liberal intellectual stated, "There seems to be an abstract that I'm missing. Other than the heading, I usually don't understand what your talking about." (Paraphrased by me.) My writings are on the glaring biases of pro and con arguments. I'm not just being equal opportunity offender on sensitive issues. But I haven't been giving my readers enough credit for the very opinion biases I want to encourage. Independent of my attempts to dissolve barriers to communication on both sides of controversies.
I wrote, "You are the abstract." Now this is true when discussing personal biases of opinion only. But I my need to be more supportive. I write about the experiential language barriers by degree. We are all stumbling blind on our quest to solve the worlds most precipitous problems. Our experiential biases are in everything from education and class to our overwhelming national appetite for contrarian split bias opinion barriers. Our war on "Fake" opinions has become a battle for the re-appropriation of an otherwise sensible but corrupted language. My vagaries are simply unacceptable. I choose to report on the subjects of Oracles and there use in the randomization of comparable data set analogies. Metaphors have a unified metric.
My readers use of this term, "Abstract" in this situation is referring to the academic convention of providing an overview at the beginning of a difficult paper, pre-ordering significant features for an otherwise obscure document, just like a map key. To describe this reader, as the "Abstract" in question is accurate. But it's still too obscure when I'm writing for a rational atheist who is looking at documented practices of traditional divination from a purely analytic perspective. The mathematics of finite algebraic groups alone is worthy of comprehensive documentation, regardless of whether or not someone may have any cause to respect the practice. Because of the density of information in my analysis of these generally abused and corrupted practices, this means I am often reviled and misunderstood on both sides of my neutral literary exercise.
Intriguingly, as I had intended, this is an example of a supremely deep chasm between polarized experiential biases. I've proven the reality of the generally misconceived unreconcilable conflicts between world views. For me to provide "Abstracts" for my writings, I will need to write separate Map Keys for peoples on both sides of our preferred choices of language.
I really don't know if I have cleared anything up for anyone. But if I have, maybe you can see the subtle reflective symmetries between this relatively low priority subject, and other subjects of much greater conflicts and disagreements.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Is there anybody out there?