My asking you a question should not be construed to act as a method by which I may judge you. I make a query of you because I am interested. I desire your response because I value your ability to contribute.
If I do not agree with you, that in and of itself is not a rationale to act disagreeably. This observation is to apply equally to all involved parties. That you may hold an opinion contary to what I conceive to be correct, or vice versa, is no call for me to condemn you. I hold that a concept may exist and be expressed without totally defining the individual sharing said concept.
We can have ideas that are not fully developed. We may be misled or posess an incomplete understanding. We may desire something to be true to such an extent we deny evidence to the contrary. The expression of a concept can be the basis for a disgreement for many reasons. This need not be a basis for enmity nor hostility.
I can express a view which may run counter to one you hold dear. You may connote a doctrine which is the antithesis to that which I sincerely maintain. Such a lack of accord should not require hostile nor malicious acts. Rather, such a difference of understanding should provide an opportunity to share a greater understanding of perception. What are the views of the other that have created a difference in conviction? Do either of us have knowledge of events or relationships which could provide a greater understanding to the other? That I may not agree with you does not provide a justification for me to afflict you.
Possessing the ablity to impose my will or viewpoint upon another does not require I act in such a matter. I may work towards the modification of my own or another's conceptual holdings without the destruction of the individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment