Dilemma

twodoors.jpgBy now everyone on the internet has read Ron Suskind’s Without a Doubt which was published in the New York Times. The whole article sort of hinges on one quote and you probably know which one it is.

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-​based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality-​judiciously, as you will-we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

This troubles me. Not the specifics, but the general intent. To assume that one has the MMO necessary to ‘create a new reality’ is quite arrogant. What frightens me even more about this bastardization of faith is that it disregards all effects of its actions, effects on the current reality mean nothing because the new reality is all that matters; but this isn’t a new reality, it is just one that doesn’t feel culpable. This seems to be the ultimate type of spin. I can’t even really talk intelligently about this because it sticks in my craw so much. Now, I’m not saying I agree with Suskind, just that the concept I mention really freaks me out.

Another dilemma: When trying to reach a compromise with someone who doesn’t want to compromise, they take your argument, throw it back at you and want to hold you to your own standards while not agreeing to do it themself.

Example:

1: Please be quiet.

2: I don’t want to be quiet. Why don’t you stop complaining?

1: I will stop complaining if you’d just be quiet.

2: You first.

1: If I stop complaining will you be quiet?

2: You first.

How do you deal with this situation?