top of page
The drawing of a small house from the top, side, and front can help explain (and explain how to work with) not just one, but TWO of the most common and troublesome sources of arguments, disagreements, and ill-will between people who could and should be friends.
Suppose someone points to the FRONT view of that house, and begins arguing, "I KNOW what that house looks like,
because I've seen it. With my own eyes.
And THIS is what it looks like. I know that, for a fact."
And then - don't be surprised - the OTHER person, who saw that same house from the SIDE, will begin arguing, "Are you stupid? Or blind? Or evil? Are you deliberately trying to lie to me, and trick me? Because I have seen that house. That exact same house. And THIS is what it looks like, you moron."
It's easy to see how things went wrong, and how they can be straightened out, when the illustration is boiled down to something that simple. A more difficult challenge is to recognize how often this sort of thing happens when a difference in perspectives is only part of the problem. However, even in those cases, patiently but firmly pointing out to the combatants that they are looking at the same thing, but from different angles -- and that things do, indeed, look different, from different angles -- can often help the situation. Never ignore or underestimate the benefit of making at least SOME progress, in solving a serious disagreement (at least, when dealing with people who actually want to make things better, as distinct from crusty old buzzards who only want to beat somebody, and win, whenever they get into an argument).
A SECOND common source of arguments
(and a good way to defuse them)
Referring again to the 2 pictures above, another common type of argument arises when two people disagree over which view is the BEST view of something. Most liberal-vs-conservative arguments fall into this category. Some conservatives argue, for example, that if you are going to be a TRUE conservative, you should look at and evaluate problems ONLY from conservative perspectives, and seeing things from different viewpoints is dangerous, immoral, or whatever.
One of the better ways to defuse THAT type of argument is by pointing out that, for people like engineers and carpenters (i.e., people who actually build useful things, designed to be sturdy, functional, and suited for people to actually use them regardless of how they vote or what party the belong to), there is no "best" view of a house. Instead, anyone who actively participates in building something which other people will need to use and rely upon, has an obligation to consider and study EVERY view of that object, until they understand each and every one of those views, well enough to understand how ALL of the views fit together and make sense. If an engineer tried to design or a carpenter tried to build a house, office building, store, or whatever, by saying, "I refuse to consider any view except the front view, because I am a true believer, and I think that only the front view, of any building, is the best view, and the only view that should be considered . . . " . . . well, people would dismiss that engineer or carpenter as an idiot, a moron, and a danger to society who should NOT be trusted with anything of genuine public importance.
There is no such thing as "the BEST view" of a building. Or, to clarify that point, even if some particular view (such as the front of a house) is designed and intended to be seen first, foremost, and most frequently, by both the owners and the public as they approach that house, the fact that that side was built for appearance's sake does not mean that it is the "best" view.
Instead, the ONLY way to truly understand any building -- or, indeed, anything which is three-dimensional or otherwise complex or challenging -- is by make a deliberate, intelligent, conscientious effort to walk ALL the way around that entire building (within reason and when possible, of course), while looking at it from each and every available angle; and, to then walk THROUGH the building, if possible (or at least study a floor plan), paying attention to how the floor plan is laid out and arranged, and how the building is being used, by the owners, occupants, etc.
Since that is -- by far -- the best, most useful, most logical, efficient, helpful, and reliable way to understand anything of importance, in real life, then a genuine and serious question arises:
WHY IN THE BLOODY HECK DON'T WE DEMAND THE SAME FROM POLITICIANS, WHEN THEY CONTROL THINGS THAT HAVE MAJOR IMPACTS ON OUR LIVES???
WHY DO WE TOLERATE -- AND CONTINUE TO ELECT -- PEOPLE WHO HAVE SO LITTLE GRASP OF REALITY (AND OF HOW TO STUDY AND UNDERSTAND THINGS) THAT THEY WILL ADAMANTLY REFUSE TO WALK ALL THE WAY AROUND A BUILDING, AS A MATTER OF "PRINCIPLE", AND THEN CLAIM TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER THAN THOSE WHO HAVE INDEED WALKED AROUND IT, SEEN IT, AND STUDIED IT FROM EVERY AVAILABLE ANGLE???
Those are the kinds of logical, reasonable, reality-based questions that The Two-Party Party hopes to begin asking, openly and publicly, in ways that (we hope) will get citizens, taxpayers, and voters to begin thinking about, asking about, and talking about those kinds of questions.
This completes the cluster of pages about different perspectives, and how to combine them and benefit from understanding ALL of them, while calmly and maturely refusing to label any single view of something complicated as the "best" view. The next page will shift into a concept that can most easily be summarized as 1-2-∑-∆. The two Greek letters are Sigma (which represents a sum), and Delta (which represents a difference). That concept is explained, beginning on the next page.
bottom of page