I just came here to have a friendly debate from time to time. My interests are politics, economics, philosophy and military science, among others.

Not exactly a liberal, so be nice…

Welcome, Valdart...

Catherine

Nice to meet you, Valdart. If what your signature says is indicative, then you and I might agree more than we disagree...although I'm exactly in step with sky of mind on the issue; differing viewpoints are one of the things that make life interesting.

Hope you enjoy your stay here...

Welcome aboard...


Doc

Thanks for the welcomes.

On the topic of keeping an open mind, I agree. Some Mao quotes I agree with on one-sidedness:

“In studying a problem, we must shun subjectivity, one-sidedness and superficiality. To be subjective means not to look at problems objectively, that is, not to use the materialist viewpoint in looking at problems. I have discussed this in my essay "On Practice". To be one-sided means not to look at problems all-sidedly.... Or it may be called seeing the part but not the whole, seeing the trees but not the forest. That way it is impossible to find the method for resolving a contradiction, it is impossible to accomplish the tasks of the revolution, to carry out assignments well or to develop inner-Party ideological struggle correctly. When Sun Wu Tzu said in discussing military science, "Know the enemy and know yourself, and you can fight a hundred battles with no danger of defeat", he was referring to the two sides in a battle. Wei Cheng of the Tang Dynasty also understood the error of one-sidedness when he said, "Listen to both sides and you will be enlightened, heed only one side and you will be benighted." But our comrades often look at problems one-sidedly, and so they often run into snags. ... Lenin said: ... in order really to know an object we must embrace, study, all its sides, all connections and "mediations". We shall never achieve this completely, but the demand for all-sidedness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity.We should remember his words. To be superficial means to consider neither the characteristics of a contradiction in its totality nor the characteristics of each of its aspects; it means to deny the necessity for probing deeply into a thing and minutely studying the characteristics of its contradiction, but instead merely to look from afar and, after glimpsing the rough outline, immediately to try to resolve the contradiction (to answer a question, settle a dispute, handle work, or direct a military operation). This way of doing things is bound to lead to trouble. ...To be one-sided and superficial is at the same time to be subjective. For all objective things are actually interconnected and are governed by inner laws, but, instead of undertaking the task of reflecting things as they really are, some people only look at things one-sidedly or superficially and know neither their interconnections nor their inner laws, and so their method is subjectivist. “
"On Contradiction" (August 1937), Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 323-24. *

“One-sidedness means thinking in terms of absolutes, that is, a metaphysical approach to problems. In the appraisal of our work, it is one-sided to regard everything either as all positive or as all negative. ... To regard everything as positive is to see only the good and not the bad, and to tolerate only praise and no criticism. To talk as though our work is good in every respect is at variance with the facts. It is not true that everything is good; there are still shortcomings and mistakes. But neither is it true that everything is bad, and that, too, is at variance with the facts. Here analysis is necessary. To negate everything is to think, without having made any analysis, that nothing has been done well and that the great work of socialist construction, the great struggle in which hundreds of millions of people are participating, is a complete mess with nothing in it worth commending. Although there is a difference between the many people who hold such views and those who are hostile to the socialist system, these views are very mistaken and harmful and can only dishearten people. It is wrong to appraise our work either from the viewpoint that everything is positive, or from the viewpoint that everything is negative.”
Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work (March 12, 1957), 1st pocket ed., and pp. 16-17. *

I also approve of the idea that “correct ideas are formed in the process of debate”. That is, correct ideas arise from struggle with incorrect ideas. That's primarily why I value these forums.

Son of a gun! I haven't had anyone quote Mao to me in probably 30 years. Extremely cool, Valdart! Matter of fact, I downloaded your post. Thank you...

In other words, if I am correct,
What I may hear that I might not agree with, doesn't leave me.
It stays there somewhere cataloged in my mind.

Then maybe someday someone else says this thing I didn't agree with.
And that earlier memory is triggered.
Now that previous thought of an item I didn't agree with has new weight,
having been added to by the newly repeated thing.
And once again I am forced to ruminate the idea.

The question then becomes,
How open am I to a new possibility,
even if at first I did not agree?

Or am I stubornly closed?

Either way, the thing defines who I am!

I once was young, and pretty sure I knew just about everything.
Learning was a chore, but when presented in a way I could hear,
I would be amazed at the marvels I could learn!

As I get older, it would seem I learn how much I do not know.
And learning becomes so much easier!

Therefore I think you can't teach anyone who already knows the answer!
I think the wisest among us is the one who says, "I don't know!"

Lemme tell ya. That is sometimes still not easy to say.
I hope to be wise before I die.
I think it will be a close race.

Hi Valdart!

To POAC!

I had one. I musta corrupted you.