I think every question has a line it sits upon... and some absolute value for its position on the line...
The line allows movement in one of two directions... only.
Either into greater reductionism... or the very inadequately described opposite, holism: into a narrower dissection in a closer view of each of the parts... or into a larger "big picture" view of the holistic function the whole exists to address, and beyond the whole, to the relationship of the functions of the whole and all of the parts... to all of the other things the whole interacts with...
Not ever a point in seeking answers with too narrow a focus... so that the external drivers of interactions that determine or elicit functions in responses... are excluded from view...
Considering global warming... without considering changes in the sun, the obvious driver of all life, as well as the climate... is moronic... yet, when the political propaganda re global warming began... that was the position... that the sun doesn't matter in considering climate... only the CO2 level does ? <rolls eyes>
Given a range in choices to be made about how to address a question... one choice that matters a lot... depends on if you gain more from taking a more detailed look in poking at some part (CO2) to better understand it in isolation... or if you gain more by subsuming the narrow view of each of the parts into addressing the larger functions (how climate works) of which each part... is only a part...
The question changes, of course... depending where along that line you determine is the best spot to answer the question that really needs answering. Where on the line that answer is best sought... should be the first question asked ? If the car is not running well... perhaps you need a narrower focus on the specific in a particular worn part... or perhaps you need a broader focus on the overall scheme of maintenance... having reached 150,000 miles without ever once changing the oil ? But if sludge is ruining the engine... a more holistic view of other parts in details of their functions and relationships... gives no useful answers ?
So, if you are arguing with your wife... is the best choice to engage in a more detailed analysis of her faults... or, instead, to address the nature of the origins apparent in the conflict... that is really not about her faults, but about what it is making her unhappy ?
Where is compromise and agreement likely to be found ? That's perhaps less about the blinding detail in particular faults... and more about systemic level maintenance issues... whether the discussion is about your car, or your wife... ?
So, put the specifics in the right boxes... and assign the boxes to be addressed by the people with the right perspective... the mechanic, and not the guy at the parts counter, for your car... etc.
So, start with the right question, and broaden the view of it to the proper position on the line as a first item... knowing the question will change as it moves along the line... to the sweet spot where it can be answered ?
The common interest should outweigh the specific... at the right spot on the line... which doesn't make the conflicts go away... but succeeds in not making them the point...
No negotiation can resolve fundamental differences... so if that's the focus... wrong spot on the line ?
I think China's approach, thus far... is wrongheaded... in many ways... but, not least because it begins with a "can't there from here" element in structuring "where on the line" we should begin the conversation... apparently seeking to avoid any potential utility by choosing that spot on the line enabling none...
More utility in changing the focus to a level that enables a resolution... and enables honest discussion... less trying to win points on specifics... when winning those points won't happen... and even if could, still can't enable any win that actually matters ?
I don't think China is capable of enabling that, now... and that ensures more losses coming...
I'll include in that "teeing up circumstantials using MSM"... is poorly conceived... badly executed... transparent as a tactic in argument that is "lets engage in a more detailed analysis of your faults"... only as a tactic adopted in defense of ones own faults...
Has that tactic ever worked in arguing with your wife ? China's (laughable) "wolf warrior" diplomats... clearly have no idea at all... how Lupin society works.
If China seeks to have its own grievances heard as a part of engagement... it will have to make that possible by adopting a more functional approach... by shifting the focus to a level of shared concern... while showing it SHARES the concerns being addressed... rather than only being the focus of them... while being defensive. The approach taken thus far only undermines China's case... obviating its potential to win any compromise.
The world has lots of reason to be concerned about China's virus issues... not just because of the lab... and China stands to gain more than others by better managing its future efforts versus the history of China being "sloppy" as the article we're discussing put it re lab management being only an extension of other issues in how China approaches that aspect of biology... China being more often than not the point in origin of viral infections that sweep the globe ? China's rapid economic progress has not been matched by parallel modernization of standards in food production... which remains third world, at best ? It's embarrassing...
But, being polite... to avoid bruising feelings... when the problem is that food on streets that are wallowing in offal and shit causes problems ? Time to get past that... and demand that California stop tolerating it ?
I would quite enjoy that... were the point of view changed to include such...
But, if China... really the CCP... can't admit to any wrong, or SHARED concern... despite the obvious... divorce will be the only answer...
And, that is what I expect... in spite of questions posed to leave open doors... |
