On Questions, and perhaps, On Answers

If you read the first four paragraphs of the site's index (the main, or front) page, you've got a fairly good understanding of my perspective on the need to ask questions about the questions being asked, or qualifying them. Examine the following workplace conversation:

Bill: "I thought we had sugar for coffee. Where did it go?"
Fred: "I used up the rest of it. There was barely two teaspoons left anyway."
Bill: "You could have saved some for me. Now I must drink unsweetened coffee."
Fred: "You should have gotten here quicker."
Bill: "You use most of it anyway, I think you should buy the next bag."
Fred: "Who do you think bought the first one? We didn't have any before."

In the steps this conversation takes, Fred is clearly the authority on what is and isn't, and Bill's perspective is changed with the answer of each question -- yet what he assumed to be true requires adaptation to what is actually true.

Perhaps you've heard the illustration about belief -- that what you believe doesn't matter, but what actually exists makes the difference. It's an oft-employed formula for sitcom episodes that Character A misunderstands what Character B says, and that misunderstanding skews the rest of the answers that B seems to give until A discovers that B meant something completely different, thereby changing the actual circumstances present. For example:

On the show Nurses, a male doctor was attempting to use creative metaphors to express to a female nurse an issue he was experiencing with his own impotence, in search for a remedy. Once the female nurse to whom he is speaking understands the dilemma, much of what else the doctor says is interpreted by that nurse as still discussing the same subject. A situation in which a tall pressurized tank is left by maintenance in the middle of the floor of the waiting area, beckons ensuing hilarity when nearby nurses, present while having seen the doctor attempt to move it, attempt to explain the situation to the first nurse (paraphrased from memory)

"The doctor tried to lift the tank himself, but it seemed too difficult for him."
"In here?? The doctor tried to lift the tank? Here in the waiting room?"
"We tried to help him, but he insisted on doing it himself."
"That's disgusting!"

What the original nurse assumed they were talking about was the doctor's impotence problem, not that there had been an actual airtank blocking traffic. She assumed, by the perspective she'd kept of the doctor, that the doctor had attempted to cure his impotence in the waiting room.

In the coffee/sugar conversation, Bill assumed that the workplace provided the sugar originally and that since Fred used so much of it, Fred would be obligated to replace it. What Bill did not know, however, was that there had formerly been no sugar available at all and that he himself (Bill) was indebted to Fred for having even made sugar available in the first place.

This misunderstanding is the basis for my concept of the filter of perspective I frequently illustrate as a series of switches along a line. Imagine a single horizontal line (in electrical terms perhaps it is an extension cord, in plumbing, perhaps a pipe, in railroad terms, a track), very long [Fig.1]. Now imagine that there is a series of switches along this line, providing three possible directions: straight, a 45-degree angle upward, and a 45-degree angle downward, spaced at even intervals along this line, and all are set for straight so the direction of travel along the line is unvaried [Fig.2].

Regardless of whether the switches are correctly set for "straight" further down the line, a much earlier switch set for upward or downward may skew the entire purpose of getting to the desired destination [Fig.3]. While eventually the destination may be reached by a series of detours [Fig.4], the adequate efficiency (or some other prerequisite condition) is not achieved so that the actual result is, while still yes, that's true, it is understood from the incorrect direction or from a misdirected root switch that disqualifies the result as legitimate.

My attempt at qualifying a question is to ensure that all of the same switches I assume you are asking are in the correct formula that you have them set in, and that your receipt of the answer possesses the same switch configuration that I am trying to express [Fig.5].

In the coffee/sugar conversation, having arighted the "who originally bought the sugar" switch to "Bill" instead of "workplace" might have answered more questions than were necessary to ask. Perhaps if Bill had already known it was Fred who provided the sugar on his own, he would not have been so quick to assert that Fred improperly used the sugar selfishly, in recognition that it was Fred's sugar from the beginning to do with as he pleased. The series of questions stemming from a detour on the main line of this misunderstanding are no longer valid questions because of an earlier question that diverts access to even consideration of those questions as valid.

My purpose in this site is to, by explaining the nature of question-asking is to perhaps aright a switch from further toward the beginning of the thought pattern (switch configuration) that removes possibility of that question being something legitimately posable [Fig.6]. For instance:

Omar: "Why did you wear a green shirt Friday?"
Lila: "I didn't."

Lila does not directly answer Omar's question, which requested an explanation of, perhaps, "Because it was St.Patrick's Day," but by arighting a switch in Lila's perceived configuration of Omar's switches in the line of reason, she made the original question unnecessary to ask [Fig.7]. By knowing that Lila did not wear a green shirt on Friday, there is no plausible basis to ask why she did. If...

Omar: "You didn't answer the question."
Lila: "You're not listening."

...the solution he was looking for in particular wasn't solved and he retained the original switch configuration without correctly adapting to new information (or perhaps distrusts whether the new switch placement/information is correct). This may reveal a different motive than simply requesting information, but to test whether Lila is a liar or just snippity. The fact that Omar did not accept the new information into the switch settings indicates this secret motive.

Asking the question, "Why did God allow my father to die?" may be an effort to, not to retrieve a genuine answer, but merely find someone with the same rusted-in-place switch configuration regardless of what was actually true. My offer of a "Because God is very mean" answer to a previously held motive that God is mean and to merely find comfort in likeminded people might give you the impression I know what I'm talking about, but my offer of an unusual or unheard-of "Because your definition/perception of 'what is tragic' is flawed" answer might cause you to question my credibility as an answerer by refusal to adjust, even temporarily or for a moment, the unswitchable.

Another example of pre-decided or assumed information skewing how answers are then interpreted thereafter would be in one's own adaptability to change of perspective to something apart from what is originally assumed to be true to what the speaker is actually talking about. For instance, if Pat kindly suggests to a friend, Terry, as an offer to take him/her out to dinner...

"Let's go out to get something for us to eat, your pick,"

but Terry hears,

"Go out to get something for us to eat, you freak,"

...the statement will change Terry's mood perhaps drastically different than what Pat had actually intended. The turning point in the two actually going out to eat peacefully will depend on whether the two can figure out what the problem is in the original statement by interpreting Terry's reaction with what Pat had actually meant to communicate, their attempt to recitify the problem by Pat's restatement of the offer again more clearly, as well as Terry's trust of whether that's what Pat originally said in the first place. If Terry refuses to accept the corrected version of the original misunderstanding, future interpretations of a foul attitude toward Terry may filter Terry's perspective of Pat with distrust. If Terry quickly accepts the correction with keen adaptability, the two could easily enjoy a nice meal together that selfsame hour and no grudge tainting future conversation.

The situation would be progressed toward a level of further misunderstanding by refusing to find an answer to what was really said. The situation could be progressed toward a level of greater understanding by asking what was originally meant by the remark.

Similarly, asking questions about questions, or what I call qualifying a question helps both the asker and the answerer be absolutely clear of what is being asked. By discussing the meanings of each object or aspect of the question, a clearer basis for most effectively answering the question that is truly being asked could be reached.

Say for instance that I were to ask you:

"Where did you buy those shoes?"

This would be made on the assumption that (a) you bought the shoes, (b) you own the shoes, (c) you could afford the shoes, and (d) the shoes in particular are implied as being a specific pair in question (among other possibilities). Even deeper root bases for asking this question is consideration of the economy of the present area of residence -- in this case being Western capitalism, in the trade of money for items (as opposed to communal posession of all things) and the concept of exclusive property.

You could further qualify the question by asking, in anticipation of a potential misunderstanding concerning the answer you'd normally have given:

"Which shoes?"

This seeks to identify exactly which shoes to which I am referring, thereby qualifying the answer you'd have given to be sure that the answer you were going to give made the most effective sense when given.

Further qualifying questions of what I meant, with, "what do you mean, buy?" might be used to clarify a potential root misunderstanding in the basis of the area's social structure of property where all things are commonly owned and no one has exclusive rights to any given thing.

When asked the question, "Why did God allow my father to die?" I would first need to know what was implied, pre-decided, assumed or worldview-filtered by "God", "allow", and "die." Without agreeing on a common concept of what these three mean, any answer I give will be filtered by what the asking party currently perceives to be correct in his/her perspective and very potentially misunderstand what I'm actually trying to say.

It is also my philosophy that often critical questions made with a judgmental attitude are strikingly coincidentally the duplicate crime of the selfsame accusation. Restated: I often find that some questions are accusatory of a crime committed by the very act of posing such a question oneself, thereby being one's own criminal and accuser simultaneously. For instance:

Jennifer: "Your nose is too big."
Penelope: "You're judging me."

Penelope is offended by Jennifer's label, and in attempt to correct her error commits the identical error by labeling Jennifer in response. The oft-used "Judge not" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote used by the biblically illiterate is actually being themself judgmental, by accusing the accusers of being judgmental while using a judgmental assertion, thus defeating their own defense in a single stroke. It is akin to retorting, "Don't use the negative "not" in the same sentence as another negative." The very instruction of such usage, itself, uses two negatives in a single sentence in an acceptable way.

Perhaps it could be better explained with a mathematics example. For instance, the belief that "A merciful God cannot allow tragedy" would be like saying x != 8. Naturally then, when some self-proclaimed mathematics guru boldly claims that "3x = 24!", an issue would arise to question whether the person was quite such a genius that he claims to be, specifically because the guru questioner holds the erroneous perception that x cannot equal 8. Perhaps there is also another underlying belief for the x != 8 issue -- that all mathematics gurus should only use a base 7 system of calculation -- not base 10. In this way, it is correct that x != 8 because there is no such number as 8 in the base 7 system of calculation. In this way, the questioner therefore can truly see how 3x = 24 if he temporarily suspends his preference for base 10 calculation. Based on the questioner's preference, however, the guru is no guru. The questioner has an even more underlying belief-circumstance that creates a reality in which a normally incorrect equations under commonly accepted methods (base 10) are therefore correct, such as 5 + 5 = 12 and 3 + 9 = 14. This site's goal is to ask questions that explore what underlying beliefs you may hold, such as a x != 8 condition or a one that once held, doesn't logically permit a certain situation to exist. Some of those might include things like "my bible version is the final authority on translations," something believed about God that isn't even biblically cited, or even some unprovable philosophical context that excludes the certain logical possibilties in the first place. Another reason for the need to ask questions that have a seeming incompatibility with a more underlying belief is that perhaps even more simply, a grudge or degree of unforgivenness may exist, hindered any pursuit of religious studies for fear of being reminded of a relatively unforgivable circumstance. Another way to look at the grudge situation is having been in a car crash on a well-used street. Passing by that same street intersection may hold too great of an emotional connection to the crash, and by driving through that intersection brings back too many horrible memories, so that in order to escape it, one decides to take various and sundry detours just to avoid the one intersection, even if it takes longer to get to the destination. The problem comes when one leaves for work running late since the detours create additional travel time. To get to work on time, one would need to actually take the intersection -- but the detours were necessary because of a belief that the intersection must be avoided -- even though the intersection is perfectly safe and the accident was caused by an illegally turning driver. The emotional toll for passing through the intersection outweighs the emotional toll of being late to work, so one is therefore late to work. ........................ The purpose of this site is to not necessarily to answer questions outrightly, as its tagline in-depth answers to tough questions professes, but also to attempt to persuade the reader to examine him/herself in a way that reveals possible motives or underlying philsophies he/she didn't realize may have been present, when asking questions in general. The answers given here are not based on a hard-edged absolute truth, but are a method of discussion of the possibilities of issues that, when also solved, create a ripple effect that answers more questions than were asked, yet answering the very one the reader seeks.

If genuinely seeking answers to a question, a process of temporarily switching perspectives must take place -- that is, a cessation of active flow along the line to manually see where, if the switches were adjusted, the flow would then travel, without actually causing the flow to go there.

This is usually called "suspenstion of disbelief" when watching a movie or reading a fiction book -- temporarily halting the need to advise someone that Wile E. Coyote cannot in fact walk off a cliff and not fall merely because he is not looking down, and by temporarily assuming that it is possible in his universe but releasing such suspended acceptance after the event is ended. Consideration of whether something may be true, in an effort to find out whether or not something is in fact true requires such suspension of previously held switch configurations and thought flow, such as when a plumber must shut off water to the house in order to repair an emmenently faulty pipe. He is not causing the permanent access of the house to the water system, but is temporarily depriving it of water to repair one piece. To adequately find an answer to a leaky conclusion or questionable series of reasoned positions, one must temporarily switch one such valve to see whether the belief "holds water".

Most contradictions found in the bible are based on first impressions of what something means, such as that Mary's husband Joseph is described as having two different fathers in geneology outlines, when in fact there are at least two different ways to describe lineage -- from Mary's blood lineage and from Mary's legal lineage. Simiarly in the legal sense Jesus is related to Joseph by adoption, but is not Joseph's son by blood. Old Testament prophecy indicated that the messiah would not be born of a particular lineage, the one from which Joseph is a descendant. Mary, however, is a descendant of the line from which the messiah was prophesied to bear, and Mary is related to Joseph legally, and not by blood (per se).

Similarly the perceived arrogance of making Christ "the only way" fails to account for the fact that there had formerly NOT been away, at all, and that the possibility of there even being any single way from the start was the very introduction of Christ being the way, thus being good news that finally, there now is a way when formerly there did not exist one. If taken from the perspective of being too few methods, the rationale would not stop at merely one if there were actually two ways -- further complaint could just as easily be made if there were "only two ways" or "only twelve ways." Why just those two? Why just those twelve? As in the coffee/sugar conversation, the assumption was that Fred had been hogging the sugar when in fact, it was Fred that owned the sugar himself and had perfectly legitimate authority to take as much sugar as he pleased.

Knowing these perspectives, reading the answers on this site may become more clear in my purpose of answering them, and determining what exactly I am answering and why.