Funny, there are so many agreed-to specific and intricate rules of engagement in chess, even down to the very second one takes to making a move…..so too, I believe, couples should be continuing to develop, agree and re-agree to their own rules of engagement before engaging in any disputes.
Chess is a wonderful game of battling wits as too is a relationship, in my opinion, and it can be so much fun if we can get and manage such agreements and not devolve into a dispute, conflict, ultimately a fight and quite possibly violence or murder even.
From the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari.
I’ve understood this idea of fictional agreements for a while now. ie that money is an agreement. Even Dong, the currency for Vietnam is a derivative of “dong y” meaning to agree.
And the creation of our agreements for treating each other etc. but the problem with fictional abilities is that we can create false narratives that are not agreeable. So all our institutions were set up to counter these false narratives.
Personally having the skills to expose these false and non-agreeable narratives is what everyone should aspire to cultivate. It is the conversation skill of making sure, I believe.
So it is almost like we developed two skills at the same time, some 50,000-100,000 years ago, to have this ability of making sure and to making unsure, agreeing to believe a narrative and and outright lying.
But what Yuval Noah Harari seems to have left out so far is what society has created from fictional is now true and legal.
Just try go to the USA boarder and explain you don’t need a passport because boarders are only fictional concept. You cannot!
Look how hard we struggle to believe in the fictional value of cryptocurrency now.
It is a very volatile currency and belief.
I think we need to practice being fictional and practice exposing or objecting to fictional narratives.
“What if” being the biggest phrase in the English language and “we can’t “ being the biggest lie.
It seems to me that delusion has an intricate part to play in mental illness. If this is not delusional, then, the less delusional, or more factual or accurate we are, the healthier, in our own mind we are going to be…maybe.
Is it possible that the more surety we are continually seeking, the less likely we are to be mentally unstable.
I believe this idea could be tested.
For the last 100,000 years people have been in the information era. Since we began to converse and share information with each other we have been assessing or making sure of the information’s integrity. Making sure of its accuracy, consistency and that we are ultimately understanding it.
If this is true and we agree with this axiom then it changes everything, I believe, as we become conscious of it. As we become aware of making sure and we are continuously making sure that we are making sure we are forming a singularity or an incidence of exponential growth that might explain where we are today and where we are heading.
Of course, as with anything some people are making sure more than others. Some have already made sure, their own, usually, what we call dogma or tradition or are making very little, more sure. Whereas others can be making sure on a daily basis, creating or discovering new ideas, concepts, systems and inventions during the process of making sure.
How does one, by making sure, make us also more creative?
Maybe it doesn’t, maybe it just leads us into a greater truth of discovery.
Some things become much clearer with this idea of Making Sure, in my view such as the opposite of making sure. Prejudice or prejudging is not helpful when making sure. Anger is not helpful either when we are making sure. Lying and ignoring also hinders the making of sure. And finally laziness is probably the number one enemy of making sure.
So if you want to be more creative, and who doesn’t these days, why not start making sure you are making sure..
I am unsure but think it could be a very important question to answer. For example I think that maybe objecting is more about pausing a moment in time and stepping out of the situation whereas complaining we still remain “inside” the situation. Objecting can make us more detached, maybe.
Of course the example is in the court room when the barrister shouts out “objection your honor “ and then follows up with the grounds or reasoning for her objection.
I am also thinking that the objection is done in real-time, as close to now as possible whereas a complaint takes place anytime after the event. Objecting is more direct because of this but complaining can happen with anyone about anyone anywhere, like gossip, which is far more prevalent in our societies.
I think you could be right or at least I agree with you that objecting (maybe because it comes nearer to now)
has a less emotional aspect to it and more reasoning.
Objecting also seems to come before disagreeing with something/someone, and seems more about how we treat someone rather that what we say.
If the information or data we use is the digital part of the conversation and how we use it is the analog part then objecting seems to deal with more the analog part while disagreeing and ultimately complaining seems to deal with the digital part, or at least a mixture of both….maybe.