PhilM
You misinterpret...
If you notice I am kinda consistent, and prdictable on this board, and my positions are never in doubt....
Once I said that will fight for the right of any man to have his opinion, even though I do not share it...that has not changed that...and not likely to.
To your point
Nothing in my statement posited your statement ...“The diametrically opposed inference of such a statement is that we must all be in agreement at all times!”
But you thought it did, if it did, however it is not the only postulate, and I daresay that you would have chosen one possibility, which proves your point…not the most objective position, I might add.
Plus as an adherent to the pricniple of 'agreeing to disagree', I am sure you would be agreeable at this point if I added, “let us agree to disagree”.
But I will not.
Here is the clarification, I hope.
In the big big world I am one who do not care much for the unthought out, and untested conventions.
I have peers who are more or less like me. They like the challenge of difference, but not just for difference sake. An important criterion is that it must provide human value, and benefit to persons other than ourselves…we try to live for others, having lived for ourselves a long time ago.
In our small world, we try to avoid those positions which calls on us to 'agree to disagree'…we have successfully moved away form that as a mindset, and we do not subscribe to it.
In our research and deliberations, we have never seen the principle resolving anything…If anything it drives a wedge between parties, and create polarities…
I have not seen any evidence in my short life of the specific or general benefit of polarities.
So while it probably has its place, and function(allows me my position) I personally do not use it…I think I am somewhere else along the continuum, happily, of those that subscribe to it, or perhaps on a different continuum altogether.
When myself and the few people who I know, have issues, we lose the ego, we use the collective learning…we resolve issues…the solutions seem to have what we call human value, and an element of permanence. We apply these principles to our lives….
We have no intention to change the big big world, in fact because we/I like difference, our/my own position as small wheels in a bigger wheel, gives credence to your statement, that 'agreeing to disagree is a requirement', or I would not be able to have my positions.
And so I return to the statement above, and reiterate, you simply chose a position that supports your point... however had you thought the matter through, you might not have misunderstood, or for that matter say all the things you thought, since I neither alleged or posited it.
Please allow me to add:
“'agreeing to disagree', principle is, largely western propagated, a fallacious principle which is counterproductive, it does not resolve issues, and prohibits knowledge acquisition, which informs actions, and which may assist in covering new ground, and unlearning old, 'unproductive' habits”
The above is not negatived in your post, it can be proven again, and can withstand the most intense scrutiny as well as evidence.
This my statement :
“Perhap the animist in Borneo is closer in truth than your friendly neighbour priest, or rabbi, or...Islamist(whatever that word means)”... is evidence in the instant post that says I do not think I am... " treading the path of one who believes only he has the real truth and that all others must acquiesce to your truth.” As you say.
If you need re assurance, (not sure why), since my post is free from what you say you see…
Please be assured, as I do believe in freedom of thought…as you mean it…we could argue what the phrase means, and 'agree to disagree' by you…me I would pursue it to its natural end…
In so doing, I get results and have a position that another would never get, simply because, he is happy with his position, untested, insecure, but happy…not rocking the boat…but that is another post, for probably 'tomorrow'.
Simply… “agreeing to disagree” in many matters is the worst thing anyone can do…it sends us into our corners, and robs us the use of our intellect, reason, and available knowledge.
I would never advise it, practise it, or recommend it, and therefore I do not use it… I practise, ...'that which you want for yourself, I give to others…
I share this with you, many of my friends point out; "you give away the best things that you have”,
I tell them…that is how I think I should live…I do not give what I do not want… When I give, I give from what I want to use for myself, I then replace it…(these are new things, normally),that way I am sincere and consistent in belief and action. Some have have adopted my position on this.
Want to move along the continuum…. Do not knock it, perhaps it is the solution to harmony, and I have found it 
.
I have tried agreeing to disagree..and have moved on having found it unsuitable to my existence…
Can you try my method, of not having that principle as an option, and seeking the resolution of any issue to the end where no stone is left unturned in making sure that we can agree on it?
That way I come over to your position...or you come over to my position, or we have a completely new position. New ground uncovered by our sincere search for the truth of the situation.
Perhaps the difference we advocate is not good, perhaps harmony is what we should have, perhaps 'agreeing to disagree' is the only obstacle in our way…So how?
You misunderstood. Hope that clarifies my position on this issue...
Other issues in my post are as important as you make them, I believe and stand by them as usual, and where I have given my word, I mean it.
Thanx for your post.
Peace.
[This message has been edited by antoine (edited 11-12-2002).]
