[split] Knowing that you cannot know

[Diana]

For the example of the vaccine thread. Once it is recognized that there are two diametrically opposed viewpoints, then there is nothing else to discuss in between these two groups.

i don't know patrick.....

would this apply to individuals as well? as in, if someone says "patrick I disagree with your viewpoint" and you say "well I disagree with yours", then there's nothing to discuss, just by virtue of the fact that you disagree (on the surface at least)? that feels...... awful cold. like a stalemate.

I guess it depends on what the intents of the interlocutors are. But in many cases, I would say yes. It's just the old "we agree to disagree" in the spirit of keeping things harmonious.

Maybe you see it as cold because you imagine the parties reaching this "stalemate" at the slightest disagreement ?

But that is not what I am alluding to. You reach that state when all is said basically.

Continuing to argue after that point falls into the trying to convince category. You are no longer sharing your point of view per se.

Imagine, for example, two persons trying to understand each others, but they are not even willing to ascribe the same meaning to words. Are they even talking to each others then?

The Creation is not forcing entities to agree with each others, otherwise STS would not even exist.

Instead the natural state of things seems to be that groupings of like minded people gather together to seek more effectively.

It seems to me that the most loving and harmonious attitude is to do as Ra suggested.

"...In the case of those with whom you, as entities and as a group, are not in resonance, you wish them love, light, peace, joy, and bid them well..."

I think one can go beyond that, but it takes detachment.

One can, even though utterly disagreeing with an other, loosen the conviction of one's stance enough to "walk in the other's moccasins" so to speak, and try and see how or why the other landed on their perspective. This is not with the idea of changing one's mind, though this is an inherent possibility, but with an eye to expanding one's comprehension. 

If one is on a "side," I personally don't think it matters how much love and light one sends to the other side, as one is still in a divided position. I don't mean to denigrate the idea of sending love and light, just that it may be cancelled out by standing one's ground in a divided manner which reinforces separation.

To give one example:

Let's say you (no one in particular) don't like religions. But you can be fundamentally (pun intended ) against dogmatic and controlling religions, and talk to a Christian, a Muslim, or any person at all who has a dogmatic belief system about their philosophy without being harmed or sucked in by it even just out of curiosity, and in doing so, by reaching out in this way even to someone who is clinging to an archaic and even harmful system of beliefs, create a space of acceptance which helps the other and self. In addition, by opening up to the other's ideas in this way, you might get a larger picture of why this other is clinging to such.

One thing I do because I like to debate, is take the other side, one in which I am not familiar or aligned with. This is a very enlightening experience.