When someone tells me about how they’ve made peace with someone who hurt them by understanding them in a new and different way, and finding a place of forgiveness and compassion, and maybe even gratitude or love, etc. I cannot perceive it as wise or benevolent. I perceive delusion and violence.

It is impossible for me to trust a person capable of mistaking this kind of feeling for anything akin to love.

Perhaps the trauma damaged them and distorted their sense of what love is. But if that person conceived of love this way prior to their traumatic relationship, I will automatically suspect that they were the cause of the conflict. It is a serious thing to reduce another human being to how you experience and interpret them, and refusing to allow a person to be more than that to you is profoundly offensive and highly likely to bring out the very worst in a person.

*

Attempting to reconcile with an estranged friend or loved one without that person’s active participation cannot succeed. The attempt will either fail to bring any sense of closure, or it will succeed in bringing closure through the opposite of reconciliation — alienation.

Reconciliation is something that happens between two people who each want the other person to exist to them in a way that transcends interpretation, as an independent, respected other.

*

This does not mean that I think we must work with anyone who hurts us and reconcile with them. All I am saying is finding a place of peace toward someone who hurts us without involving them is amputating the relationship not healing it. Whatever feeling that remains behind in your heart is a phantom limb.

This year I am going to try to do a better job of communicating my communication needs.

I do not know why I am this way, but I have a painful sensitivity to communication obstructions. I do not think the sensitivity per se is unusual. The intensity of the pain probably is.

I am beginning to think it is partly caused by being an adult child of an autistic parent. It also did not help that I was transplanted at age 7 and grew up in an alien culture, and had very little parental help in figuring out how to navigate the sea of otherness into which I was dropped without flotation devices. And the condition has been intensified by the effort I have applied to learning from the best minds of history and acquiring many different ways of understanding the world. All this work has yielded what I believe are crucially important insights. It is depressing when people I consider friends treat what I have worked so hard to understand as insignificant.

Here are some examples of what I experience as painful obstructions:

• When attempts at communication — emails, messages, calls — are left unanswered.
• When I’m repeatedly interrupted when I am trying to get a complex point across.
• When someone is distracted or inattentive or changes the subject when I’m trying to discuss something important.
• In issues of differing worldview, when the other person refuses to cooperate dialogically to establish mutual understanding prior to debating individual points of fact.
• When the other person uses ad hominem arguments to invalidate my perspectives on the basis of how they’ve decided to categorize me. This includes the category “privileged”.
• When conversations I’ve indicated are important to me are repeatedly postponed, dropped or forgotten.
• When I am not given the benefit of the doubt that what I am trying to convey is at least partially-new and worth learning, and instead approaching the material as probably already known or not worth knowing.
• When others make gestures intended to deflate my over-inflated sense of self-importance or undermine my faith in the importance of the kinds of knowledge I pursue. This especially includes delivering destructive cynicism in the guise of humor.

These behaviors are not in themselves unacceptable or immoral. From acquantances or strangers, they are normal and should be expected.

But friendship requires more than normality. Friendship means caring about the meaning and impact of one’s behavior from the point of view of the friend, even — or especially — if the significance or impact is different for you.

It is precisely in honoring the peculiar differences that respect in its truest form occurs. “Re- back; “-spect” look. A friend is someone who believes that his friend looks back at him and sees something, knows something and feels something different and important from what he sees.

It is precisely when a friend seems to make little or no sense that a person’s faithfulness to friendship activates. Where you can appeal to this faith, there is friendship. Where the appeal cannot be made, the limits of friendship have been crossed.

To be a friend is to be able to make an appeal on any of these points knowing that the appeal will be taken seriously. This does no mean the appeal is automatically accepted at face value and obeyed. This would be destructive. It only means the appeal is treated as valid and important and deserving serious attention. Such appeals cannot be ignored, dismissed, explained away or deferred indefinitely.

*

This year I am going to do a combination of several things to try to get some peace in the area of communication:

1. Set the context for any especially non-casual conversations, to increase the odds that it will be productive.
2. Try to explain myself and my communication needs to people I consider actual or potential friends, to see how far the appeal to friendship is effective with them. Sharing this article might be a start.
3. Getting realistic about who can and will be a friend, and who ought to be regarded more as a friendly acquaintance, or as an adversary. I need this clarity.

And, of course, I will continue to monitor myself and try to do these things I’ve listed to others as little as possible and to catch myself as quickly as possible when I do do them. If I do any of them to you, and you are my friend, you can make an appeal, and I will make every effort to change.

And even more importantly, if I am your friend and I do things that bother you — especially things that make no sense to me — help me understand and adjust.

Or failing that, let’s accept non-friendship. Isn’t that better than falseness?

I wandered into a new age shop in Little Five Points. As I examined cool polished stones with miraculous powers to heal and stimulate creative powers, I overheard a conversation behind me. A young female voice explained how each person must choose either either love or fear. I’d heard this idea before, and there seems to be truth in it. But I wondered if love and fear are really separable like that. Can an “or” be set between them, so that we can take one and leave the other? It seems to me that in the realm of lived reality love and fear come together, and that only imagined abstractions can be loved purely or feared purely.

If an individual were able to keep a diary from infancy to old age, that diary would contain truths of many kinds. If a reader wished to understand the text, each stage of development would require a different mode of interpretation. Making coherent sense of the diarist’s life as a whole would require at least one more interpretation, if not a dozen.

The same is true of a people chronicling its existence, generation upon generation, over the course of millennia.

To impose one interpretive mode upon the entirety of the record would lead to major errors. One might misread the earliest dreamworld experiences from the perspective of relative maturity — or one might read mature reflections on a life of experience (that spans multiple interpretive epochs) from the perspective of a small child.

*

I do consider myself a Christian — but one who believes that the truths in the Bible and the many traditions to which the Bible belongs are as profoundly heterogeneous as they are profound. The effort to understand what is said through the Bible requires the discovery of many modes of interpretation and ways of understanding, each able to say truth other modes cannot. The truths revealed through this process of pursuit are written and overwritten in layers across a perpetually transfiguring world — a divine palimpsest.

Every individual soul is the size of everything that exists. But different everythings have different sizes, densities, and textures and are held together by different logics.

Let’s define reality as that transcendent everything that contains all possible everythings. 

This transcendent reality has the dreadful habit of surprising souls with new existences that defy the limits of everything and demand re-sizing, re-densifying, re-texturing and re-thinking everything just when everything seems known and under control.

*

Reality is chaos, but this not the chaos of non-order. 

Transcendent reality is a chaos of too many orders. 

“Too many” means too many orders for any finite everything to understand simultaneously. 

Even the greatest human soul is small, and requires intelligent selection and connection of orders to develop an everything capable of functioning among everythings.

We are used to thinking of beliefs as biased. And usually we see the greatest sources of bias coming from unconscious psychological processes or from the willful refusal to admit what we know in our hearts or in our minds.

However, it is not only conclusions that are biased. In fact, I would bet that most bias is rooted in other places. An incomplete list:

1. Categorization schemas that define identity and impute agency.
2. Relevance criteria that systematically focus attention on some empirical data while neglecting other data.
3. Normative logics that invest various phenomena with moral meaning.
4. Epistemic methods for producing what ought to be regarded as universal and binding truths.

Until we grasp these dynamics and stop behaving as if we have settled matters when we have used our own subjective categories, relevance criteria, normative logics and epistemic methods to come to objective conclusions whose self-evident truth is a litmus test for justice — we remain illiberal and are unfit for intellectual and political leadership in liberal-democratic institutions.

*

Arguments based on unconscious psychological bias are as effective and impossible to argue against as arguments based on insidious demonic influences.

*

Liberalism is the most radical practice of the golden rule. It recognizes that what we would have done unto ourselves is respect for our sense of reality — our own finite piece of infinite knowledge of the world — our own personal everything amidst myriad everythings. It recognizes that our most reliable source of the infinite beyondness is the alternative everything of our neighbors. Infinite beyondness induces dread.

*

What we hate in our neighbor is God’s own inherent dread.

Good is understanding that the two highest commandments — love god with your entirety and love your neighbor as yourself — are as discrete and inseparable as the persons of the trinity.

Evil justifies itself by systematically interpreting dread as detection of evil, and the suppression of dread as righteousness.

*

Hell is the confusion of dread and evil.
Hell is the belief that hell is other people.

Several attempts at the same aphorism:

• The narrower an equality gap, the more it galls.
• When it comes to equality, petty discrepancies are more dangerous than gross ones.
• A gas tank full of fumes explodes more violently than one freshly filled. As we approach actual fairness, the remaining unfairness grows more volatile. 

I read this idea somewhere recently, but I can’t recall where. 

The best comedians sacrifice their own dignity to redeem the dignity of others. 

Interview, observation, co-creation & demonstration: the air, earth, fire & water of design research techniques.

It is important to learn where you can and cannot make promises. 

Not only does this help you avoid conflict and alienation, it draws you a map of the public and private regions of your soul. 

The last month has been filled with broken promises of many kinds — explicit and implicit, asserted and implied, formal and informal, word and spirit. I can list at least a half-dozen major examples, and probably a dozen more minor ones. 

*

I am going to be stingier is accepting promises — and in making them. Not all people are worthy of exchanging promises. I can no longer default to trust. I must learn the art of being cheerful about being let down by dishonorable majority. 

*

Wherever you have failed to make your word good, your word is worthless. 

“Form of oath. — ‘If I am now lying I am no longer a decent human being and anyone may tell me so to my face.’ — I recommend this form of oath in place of the judicial oath with its customary invocation of God: it is stronger. Even the pious person has no reason to oppose it: for as soon as the sanction of the oath hitherto in use begins to be applied vainly, the pious person must give ear to his catechism, which prescribes ‘thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain!'”

Commitments are predictions we work to make true.

*

A futurist who fails to say true things about the future lacks skill. 

A promiser who fails to say true things about the future lacks integrity. 

Reason is always logical, but logic is not always reasonable. 

Whatever is reasonable is always arguable, but not every argument is reasonable; and therefore arguments alone are not sufficient to distinguish reason from unreason. 

Reason transcends argument. Reason knows it is completed only by what always stands beyond the limits of intelligibility. 

*

To the degree an argument is untested, that argument remains arguable.

To the degree an argument is unaware of the tests that can invalidate it, that argument is naive.

To the degree an argument is unconcerned about tests that can invalidate it, that argument is complacent. 

To the degree an argument is hostile to tests that can invalidate it, that argument is ideological. 

To the degree an argument does not conceive tests that can invalidate it, that argument is blind. 

To the degree an argument conceives the failure to conceive tests that can invalidate it as nonexistence of such tests, that argument is blind to blindness.

To the degree an argument confuses mere arguability with truth, that argument is unreasonable. 

*

Among my unpopular convictions is this one: Religion is essentially reasonable. Ideologies built with logical arguments that reject the cornerstone of reason are not religions; they are fundamentalisms.

Fundamentalism is the dead opposite of religion.

*

A universal scientific method moved by awareness of argumentative limits and of reason’s permanent dependence on mind-transcending realities — an active desire to submit one’s arguments to the judgment of what stands invisibly beyond mind — and consequent mistrust of self-evident certainty — is pious.