This is a useful frame, and the three questions are doing a lot of work, especially the dismantling of the weld between fact and interpretation. Where I keep landing, though, is on the step after. Run those questions properly and I usually end up with two or three readings that all hold up reasonably well, plus a much better grasp of the context I was missing. Which is honest, and also a kind of paralysis.
I wrote something last spring about why nuance matters in an age of absolutism, and the line I landed on was that holding multiple truths means seeing the whole terrain and then choosing your ground with intention. (Here if you'd like to read it, no pressure: https://unexpectedinsights.substack.com/p/truth-in-tension-why-complexity-matters) Second sight, the way you're describing it, is what gets us to the terrain. The choosing seems like a separate move, and not one that follows automatically from the dismantling.
So: are the three questions doing the work of weighting implicitly? Or is the choosing a separate move altogether, one where you accept that some context will stay missing and stand somewhere anyway?
Wow, an analysis of the « condition humaine » even, worthy of the Chinese sage. Thanks Koen.
PS
According to the search suggestions the duck, duck offered me, Confusius was a foodie. 🍜
Well have you ever!
Well that’s one more thing I share with the Chinese sage 😋
(Thanks for the compliment 👍)
New subscriber, happy to be here!
This is a useful frame, and the three questions are doing a lot of work, especially the dismantling of the weld between fact and interpretation. Where I keep landing, though, is on the step after. Run those questions properly and I usually end up with two or three readings that all hold up reasonably well, plus a much better grasp of the context I was missing. Which is honest, and also a kind of paralysis.
I wrote something last spring about why nuance matters in an age of absolutism, and the line I landed on was that holding multiple truths means seeing the whole terrain and then choosing your ground with intention. (Here if you'd like to read it, no pressure: https://unexpectedinsights.substack.com/p/truth-in-tension-why-complexity-matters) Second sight, the way you're describing it, is what gets us to the terrain. The choosing seems like a separate move, and not one that follows automatically from the dismantling.
So: are the three questions doing the work of weighting implicitly? Or is the choosing a separate move altogether, one where you accept that some context will stay missing and stand somewhere anyway?