Perception is a funny thing.

After my last blog post was published by Independent Australia I found that a lot of comments directed through their forums discussed issues that were wll beyond my intent to raise.

It was heartening to see the ways in which my words were being interpreted as the idea of people drawing subjective meaning is an important part of the experience of any work.

Friends (yes I do have a couple), have asked me what I was trying to accomplish with the article, for me it was a cathartic exercise designed to bring out the boiling emotions I have on this subject in a more rational mode (I will cover my own experiences with assault in a future article).

It is a bit of a cliché, however the central point of writing for me, is that it can foster what Plato descibed as a ‘dialectic‘ or a discussion based not on opinion or emotion but on the attainment of logical conclusions through rational discourse.

Having had a lot of arguments with a lot of people over trivial matters I’ve found that opinions tend to serve only one party and are rarely changed by rational argument, presenting opinion will most often only serve to further entrench an opposing view.

“Humanity is most dangerous when it lacks the ability to doubt. Whether an individual is theistic or atheistic the belief one holds is inherently flawed if it denies the ability of others to disagree or denigrates those who draw differing conclusions.”

We are all guilty of using opinion as a battering ram to try and sway a person to our conclusions, it is perfectly natural to use emotion within an argument becasue as much as we think we are right, we also feel it, we have physical responses to rejection and approval.

Perhaps the key is to not hold such firmly entrenched views but permit the possibility that very often, we are wrong.
If you take a brief view of history the greatest disasters have been caused by people who believed they were ‘right’, ‘had a right’ or were ‘right acording to (insert deity)’. Humanity is most dangerous when it lacks the ability to doubt. Whether an individual is theistic or atheistic, the belief one holds is inherently flawed if it denies the ability of others to disagree or denigrates those who draw differing conclusions.

In a universe ruled by chaos it is logical to assume that rational explanations may be unlikely, it is the process of the dialectic that enables people to test ideas in a group setting. When discussing perception, it is rational to conclude that every view contributes to the entire comprehension of a subject, as long as the contibutor is aware that their view is likely flawed and will need to be hammered out within a dialectic.

A writer should act as a stimulant to this discussion, not through baseless arrogance or as the newspapers like to put it ‘comment’, they should test ideas and then allow the public to test them again.

By thrusting our opinion down the throats of others we do a massive disservice not only to the person we are trying to convert but also to ourselves because inevitably we will accomplish only one thing, the advertisement of our ignorance.